(单词翻译:单击)
And yet Alabama argued that, by taking race into account at all, the district court indulged in “the noxious idea that redistricting begins and ends with racial considerations.”
然而，阿拉巴马州辩称，地区法院将种族因素考虑在内，沉溺于“始于重划选区、终于种族问题的有害想法”。
The creation of a new majority-Black district, the state claimed, was therefore nothing more than a “racial gerrymander,” a phrase that Alabama’s lawyers used multiple times in the application for a stay.
该州声称，建立一个黑人占多数的新选区不过是“按照种族因素重划的不公正选区”，阿拉巴马州的律师在申请暂缓令时多次使用这一说法。
Unless the justices blocked the order, the state warned, “Alabamians will suffer the constitutional harm of being assigned to racially segregated districts, irreconcilable with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and the VRA as initially conceived.”
该州警告说，除非大法官阻止该决议，否则“阿拉巴马人将遭受宪法伤害，被分配到种族隔离的选区，这与《第十四修正案》、《第十五修正案》和最初设想的《选举权法案》相矛盾。”
Section 2 is supposed to be a “shield against racial discrimination,” the state’s formal brief reads. “It is not a sword to perpetuate it.”
该州的辩护状上写道，《第二条》应该是“反对种族歧视的盾牌”。“而非是让其永存的宝剑。”
These sentences merit parsing with care.
这些句子值得仔细斟酌。
The words invite a dramatic conclusion: that the heart of the Voting Rights Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court a generation ago and as applied many times since, is unconstitutional.
这些话语引出了一个戏剧性的结论: 《投票权法案》的核心，正如最高法院上一代人解释的那样，也正如此后其被多次应用的那样，是违宪的。
What Alabama is saying, essentially, is that any effort to eradicate racial discrimination is itself racial discrimination.
阿拉巴马州表示，从本质上说，任何消除种族歧视的努力本身就是种族歧视。
But how can that be?
但这怎么可能呢?
How can we know when a Voting Rights Act remedy is called for unless we can take account of race?
除非我们能考虑到种族因素，否则我们怎么知道什么时候需要《投票权法案》的补救措施?
Alabama is trying to turn the statute inside out and upside down.
阿拉巴马州正试图彻底推翻这一法规。
The district court, in rejecting the state’s argument, observed that it was “obvious” that its logic would “preclude any plaintiff from ever stating a Section Two claim.”
地方法院在驳回该州的论点时指出，该州的逻辑“显然”会“排除任何原告提出《第二条》的权力要求”。
That conundrum will be obvious to the Supreme Court as well.
这个难题对最高法院来说也是显而易见的。
But for the conservative justices, the problem is not how to satisfy the Gingles test but rather the test itself.
但对于保守派法官来说，问题不在于如何满足金格尔斯案的检验标准，而在于检验本身。
Roberts made that point in his dissent from the stay.
罗伯茨在反对暂缓令时表达了这一点。
“While the District Court cannot be faulted for its application of Gingles,” he wrote, “it is fair to say that Gingles and its progeny have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty.”
他写道:“虽然地方法院应用金格尔斯案的检验标准无可厚非，但公平地说，这种检验及其衍生的检验标准已经引起了相当大的分歧和不确定性。”
He then quoted Justice Anthony Kennedy, who warned in a 1994 vote-dilution case that “placing undue emphasis upon proportionality risks defeating the goals underlying the Voting Rights Act.”
他随后引用了大法官安东尼·肯尼迪的话，后者在1994年的一宗选票稀释案中警告称，“过分强调比例可能会破坏《投票权法案》的基本目标。”
