法律翻译｜《纽大法律评论》第97卷第1期目录+摘要

译者｜段依辰 中国人民大学B.A. 

一审｜LYJ   NUS LL.M.

二审｜田雅琦 青岛大学本科

编辑｜陈婉菁 中国政法大学硕士

         邵娅绮 浙江工商大学本科

责编｜戚琳颖 大连海事大学本科

Colorblind Tax Enforcement

不分肤色的税收执法

作者：Jeremy Bearer-Friend

Abstract：

The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has repeatedly taken the position that because the IRS does not ask taxpayers to identify their race or ethnicity on submitted tax returns, IRS enforcement actions are not affected by taxpayers’ race or ethnicity. This claim, which I call “colorblind tax enforcement,” has been made by multiple IRS Commissioners serving in multiple administrations (both Democratic and Republican). This claim has been made to members of Congress and to members of the press.

In this Article, I refute the IRS position that racial bias cannot occur under current IRS practices. I do so by identifying the conditions under which race and ethnicity could determine tax enforcement outcomes under three separate models of racial bias: racial animus, implicit bias, and transmitted bias. I then demonstrate how such conditions can be present across seven distinct tax enforcement settings regardless of whether the IRS asks about race or ethnicity. The IRS enforcement settings analyzed include summonses, civil penalty assessments, collection due process hearings, innocent spouse relief, and Department of Justice (DOJ) referrals.

By establishing that every major enforcement function of the IRS remains vulnerable to racial bias, this Article also challenges the IRS decision to omit race and ethnicity from the collection and analysis of tax data. The absence of publicly available data on IRS enforcement activities by race should not be interpreted as evidence that no racial disparities exist. I conclude by describing alternative approaches to preventing racial bias in tax enforcement other than the current IRS policy of purported colorblindness.

摘要：

美国国税局(IRS)多次表明立场，由于国税局不要求纳税人在其提交的纳税申报表上确认其种族或民族，因此国税局的执法行动不受纳税人种族或民族的影响。笔者将此称为“不分肤色的税收执法”（colorblind tax enforcement），由在多个政府部门（民主党和共和党）任职的多位国税局专员提出。国会议员和新闻界人士也都提出过这种说法。

在本文中，笔者驳斥了国税局所持有的“其目前的执法实践下不会发生种族偏见”的立场。为此，笔者明确了在三种不同的种族偏见模式下种族和民族如何决定税收执法结果，这三种模式包括：种族敌意、隐性偏见和传播偏见。其后，笔者将展示无论国税局是否问及种族或民族，这些条件是如何在七个不同的税收执法环境中呈现的。所分析的国税局执法环境包括传票、民事罚款评估、征收正当程序听证会、无罪配偶救济和司法部(DOJ)转介。

通过确定国税局的每一项主要执法职能仍然容易受种族偏见影响，本文还对国税局在收集和分析税务数据过程中忽略种族和民族的决定提出了质疑。国税局执法活动按种族划分的公开数据的缺失，不应被解释为不存在种族差异的证据。最后，笔者描述了防止税收执法中种族偏见的其他方法，以替代目前国税局所谓的“不分肤色”政策。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/colorblind-tax-enforcement/

Structural Biases in Structural Constitutional Law

结构性宪法中的结构性偏见

作者：Jonathan S. Gould & David E. Pozen

Abstract：

Structural constitutional law regulates the workings of government and supplies the rules of the political game. Whether by design or by accident, these rules sometimes tilt the playing field for or against certain political factions—not just episodically, based on who holds power at a given moment, but systematically over time—in terms of electoral outcomes or policy objectives. In these instances, structural constitutional law is itself structurally biased.

This Article identifies and begins to develop the concept of such structural biases, with a focus on biases affecting the major political parties. Recent years have witnessed a revival of political conflict over the basic terms of the U.S. constitutional order. We suggest that this phenomenon, and a large part of structural constitutional conflict in general, is best explained by the interaction between partisan polarization and structural bias, each of which can intensify the other. The Article also offers a typology of structural biases, keyed to the contemporary United States but potentially applicable to any system. To date, legal scholars have lagged social scientists in investigating the efficiency, distributional, and political effects of governance arrangements. The concept of structural bias, we aim to show, can help bridge this disciplinary gap and thereby advance the study of constitutional design and constitutional politics.

摘要：

结构性宪法（structural constitutional law）规范了政府的运作，并为政治游戏提供规则。无论是出于有意还是无意，从选举结果和政策目标来看，这些规则有时会使竞争环境向利于或不利于某些政治派别的方向倾斜，这不仅仅是基于特定时刻掌权者的偶然情况，而是长期的系统性倾斜。在这些情况下，结构性宪法本身就具有结构性偏见。

本文重点围绕影响主要政党的偏见，界定并展开这种结构性偏见的概念。近年来，围绕美国宪法秩序基本条款的政治冲突重新出现。本文认为，对这种现象，以及总体上的结构性宪法冲突中很大一部分情况，最好的解释是党派两极化和结构性偏见之间的相互作用，两者中的任一一方都能激化另一方。本文还提供了结构性偏见的类型学，与当代美国密切相关，但也潜在地可能适用于任何系统。迄今为止，法律学者在研究治理安排的效率、分配和政治影响方面已经落后于社会科学家。本文旨在表明，结构性偏见的概念可以帮助弥合这一学科差距，从而推进宪法设计和宪法政治的研究。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/structural-biases-in-structural-constitutional-law/

Revitalizing Tribal Sovereignty in Treatymaking

通过条约制定振兴部落主权

作者：David H. Moore, Michalyn Steele

Abstract：

In the current model of federal-Indian relations, the United States claims a plenary legislative power, as putative guardian, to regulate Indian tribes. Under this model, tribes are essentially wards in a state of pupilage. But the federal-tribal relationship was not always so. Originally, the federal government embraced, even promoted, a more robust model of tribal sovereignty in which federal-Indian treatymaking and diplomacy figured prominently. Through treaties, the United States and tribes negotiated territorial boundaries, forged alliances, facilitated trade, and otherwise managed their relations. In 1871, Congress attempted to put an end to federal-Indian treatymaking by purporting to strip tribes of their status as legitimate treaty partners. In a rider to the 1871 Appropriations Act, Congress prohibited the recognition of tribes as sovereign entities with whom the United States could negotiate treaties. Since that time, the 1871 Act and the plenary power-pupilage model it entrenched have grown deep roots in federal Indian law and the policies of the United States. Congress has aggrandized its role in tribal life at the expense of tribal sovereignty, and the coordinate branches of the federal government have acquiesced in this foundational shift.

（图片来源于网络）

The literature of federal Indian law has wrestled with the doctrine of plenary power, contemplated the fate of the federal-tribal treaty relationship, and questioned the constitutionality of the 1871 rider. This Article posits new arguments for the unconstitutionality of the 1871 Act, uprooting the presumptions underlying the Act and revitalizing the prospect of federal-Indian treatymaking. Two recent developments provide an opportunity for such a transformation. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court held that the President alone possesses the power to recognize foreign states and governments. While Zivotofsky was a landmark case for U.S. foreign relations law, its potential significance for federal Indian law has gone underappreciated. Zivotofsky did not directly address the locus of power to recognize tribal sovereignty to enter treaties, but it prompts the question and provides a blueprint for arriving at an answer. Engaging that blueprint, this Article argues that the President possesses the exclusive power to recognize tribes’ sovereign capacity to enter treaties. The result: The 1871 Act is unconstitutional because it attempts to limit that power. In our view, the President can and should unilaterally reengage in federal-Indian treatymaking, revitalizing treatymaking and reanimating the sovereignty model of federal-Indian relations.

摘要：

在目前的联邦-印第安关系模式中，美国作为推定的监护人，声称拥有全权的立法权来规范和管理印第安部落。在这种模式下，部落本质上是处于未成年状态的受监护人。但联邦与部落的关系并不总是如此。最初，联邦政府接受甚至提倡一种更强有力的部落主权模式，其中联邦-印第安的条约制定和外交占据突出地位。通过条约，美国和印第安部落就领土边界进行谈判协商，结成联盟，促进贸易，并以其他方式管理他们的关系。1871年，国会试图通过剥夺部落的合法条约伙伴地位来结束联邦与印第安的条约制定。在1871年《拨款法案》（Appropriations Act）的附加条款，国会终止承认部落是美国可以与之谈判条约的主权实体。从那时起，1871年法案及其所确立的全权监护-受监护人模式（power-pupilage model）在联邦-印第安法律和美国政策中根深蒂固。国会以牺牲部落主权为代价扩大了其在部落生活中的作用，而联邦政府的分支机构也默许了这一根本性转变。

联邦-印第安法律的相关文献一直与全权监护学说作斗争，思考联邦-部落条约关系的命运，并质疑1871年附加条款的合宪性。本文提出了1871年法案违宪的新论点，推翻了该法案背后的基本假设并重振联邦-印第安条约制定的前景。最近的两项发展为这一转变提供了机会。在齐沃托夫斯基诉科里案(Zivotofsky v. Kerry)中，最高法院裁定总统独自享有承认外国国家和政府的权力。虽然齐沃托夫斯基案是美国外交关系法的里程碑式案例，但它对联邦-印第安法律的潜在意义却未被充分重视。该案没有直接解决承认部落主权以签订条约的权力所在，但它提出了问题并提供了得出答案的蓝图。根据这一蓝图，本文认为总统拥有承认部落签订条约的主权能力的专有权力。其结果是：1871年法案违宪，因为该法案试图限制这一专有权力。笔者认为，总统可以并且应该单方面重新参与联邦-印第安的条约制定，重振条约制定以及联邦-印第安关系的主权模式。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/revitalizing-tribal-sovereignty-in-treatymaking/

Merging Photography’s Copyright

合并摄影作品的版权

作者：Amanda Fischer Adian

Abstract：

Photography has exploded into the most accessible mode of creative production of our time: Over one trillion photographs will be taken this year. Yet despite the medium’s dramatic expansion, catalyzed by advances in technology, the copyright-ability of photography remains controlled by a Supreme Court precedent that is over one hundred years old, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony. The longstanding interpretation of Burrow-Giles in the lower courts has rendered nearly every litigated photograph copyrightable, even though the factual foundation of Burrow-Giles is remarkably inconsistent with how most photography is produced today. With protracted, low-value, and often frivolous copyright litigation over photographs increasingly clogging up federal courts’ dockets, it is high time to reconsider photography’s copyright.

（图片来源于网络）

This Note argues that a revitalization of copyright’s merger doctrine—long ignored or dismissed in the realm of photography’s copyright—could be the vehicle for this reassessment. Theorizing photographs as mergeable does not render the medium per se uncopyrightable, but captures the spirit of the Supreme Court’s now 150-year-old instruction to permit photography’s copyright, while correcting for changes in photographic technology to better uphold the Court’s simultaneous mandate that “ordinary” photographs should not receive copyright protection.

摘要：

摄影的爆炸性增长已经使其成为我们这个时代最容易获得的创意生产方式：今年拍摄的照片将超过一万亿张。然而，尽管在技术进步的推动下，摄影媒介急剧扩张，但摄影作品的版权权利的裁判至今仍受到在最高法院100多年前的一个判例的影响，即布伦-贾尔斯石印公司诉萨罗尼案(Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony)。下级法院对布伦-贾尔斯案长期以来的解释使得几乎每一张涉讼照片都具有版权，尽管布伦-贾尔斯案的事实基础与当今大多数摄影的制作方式明显不一致。随着旷日持久、低价值且往往无意义的摄影作品版权诉讼越来越多地诉至联邦法院，现在是重新考虑摄影版权问题的时候了。

本文认为，重振在摄影版权领域长期被忽视或否定的版权合并原则，可能会帮助重新评估这一问题。。将照片理论化为可合并的方式并不会使这种媒介本身不受版权保护，反而是抓住了最高法院已有150年历史的指令的精神，即允许摄影作品享有版权的同时纠正摄影技术的变化，以更好地维护法院同时规定的“普通”（ordinary）照片不应受到版权保护的要求。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/merging-photographys-copyright/

Doubling Down: Inconsistent Prosecutions, Capital Punishment, and Double Jeopardy

重申：不一致起诉、死刑和一罪不二审

作者：Vedan Anthony-North

Abstract：

There is a practice among prosecutors whereby they pursue incompatible theories of a case against two or more defendants for criminal behavior for which, factually, only one defendant can be culpable. While it’s difficult to determine just how frequently these arguments are made, at least twenty-nine people have been condemned to death in cases where the defense has alleged inconsistencies, and seven of those twenty-nine people have been executed. Situations like these cut against our moral and ethical understanding of fairness and of justice; these arguments operate in a world detached from reality, where factually singular acts can have multiple agents, prosecutors are not accountable to a consistent narrative, and factfinders are asked to make ultimate determinations of death based on factual impossibilities. But finding ways to challenge the practice has, frustratingly, fallen short in providing legal relief to the condemned.

This Note looks beyond the due process and Eighth Amendment arguments against this practice that have not provided fertile ground for protecting criminal defendants from this type of vindictive approach to sentencing. Instead, this Note makes a normative argument that the history of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, along with civil law principles of collateral estoppel that have been incorporated into the criminal law through the Clause, and protections against vindictive sentencing practices that undergird the Clause bars this practice. In other words, this Note argues that double jeopardy preclusion principles bar prosecutors from relitigating issues of ultimate culpability in successive cases. This solution draws on the Supreme Court’s only consideration of this issue—Bradshaw v. Stumpf—which makes an analytical distinction between the consequences of this practice on conviction and consequences on sentencing.

摘要：

检察官之间有一种做法是针对两名或两名以上被告的犯罪行为提出不相容的理论，而事实上，只有一名被告可能受到惩罚。虽然很难确定这些论点的出现频率，但至少有29人在辩护方声称前后不一致的情况下被判处死刑，而这29人中有7人已经被处决。像这样的情况违背了我们对公平和正义的道德和伦理理解；这些论点在一个脱离现实的世界中运作，在那里，事实单一的行为可以有多个代理人，检察官不需要对叙述的一致性负责，事实调查者被要求根据事实的不可能性做出最终的死亡决定。但是，令人沮丧的是，找到质疑这种做法的途径并不能为定罪者提供法律救济。

本文超越了正当程序和第八修正案反对这种做法的论点，这些论点没有为保护刑事被告免受这种报复性量刑方法提供坚实的基础。与之相反，本说明提出了一个规范性的论点：即第五修正案的“一罪不二审条款”（Double Jeopardy Clause）的历史，通过该条款被纳入刑法的附带禁止反言的民法原则，以及作为该条款基础的对防止报复性量刑做法的保护，均禁止检察官的这种做法。换言之，本文认为，一罪不二审原则禁止检察官在连续案件中就最终刑罚问题重新提起诉讼。此种解决方案借鉴了最高法院对这个问题的唯一考量，即布拉德肖诉斯顿夫案(Bradshaw v. Stumpf)，该案就这种做法对定罪的后果和对量刑的后果进行了分析性区分。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/doubling-down-inconsistent-prosecutions-capital-punishment-and-double-jeopardy/

Nipping It in the Bud: Fixing the Principal-Agent Problem in Class Actions by Looking to Qui Tam Litigation[1]

防患于未然：通过寻求公益代位诉讼来解决集体诉讼中的委托代理问题

作者：Nicholas Alejandro Bergara

Abstract：

The principal-agent problem in class actions, which occurs whenever the interests of class counsel (the agent) conflict with those of the class (the principal), has plagued the class action system for decades. When these conflicts of interest arise, they often lead to plaintiff classes receiving lower monetary awards than they otherwise deserve, above-market fees for attorneys, and underenforcement of claims against wrongdoers. Throughout the years, both Congress and scholars alike have tried to address this issue, but it persists. This Note invites Congress and scholars to think differently about potential solutions to a problem that has been around for far too long. It argues that looking to qui tam litigation, specifically, the False Claims Act, provides a unique approach that could help significantly curtail the principal-agent problem. By permitting the government to install itself as lead counsel in class actions involving money damages—when it deems an action to be worthy—the financial incentives between any given class and its respective class counsel are realigned. While private attorneys seek the maximum amount of attorney’s fees, even if it comes at the expense of the client, government lawyers do not have the same motivation. Adding an amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permitting qui tam litigation would allow the government to act as a gatekeeper for class actions while leaving the option open for private attorneys to bring suit should the government decide not to do so. By providing different channels of enforcement, the amendment offers a promising opportunity to better deter private sector misconduct, discourage frivolous suits, and improve the overall outcomes for plaintiff classes.

（图片来源于网络）

摘要：

集体诉讼中的委托代理问题几十年来一直困扰着集体诉讼制度，每当集体律师(代理人)的利益与集体当事人(委托人)的利益发生冲突时，就会出现委托代理问题。当这些利益冲突出现时，通常会导致原告集体获得比他们应得的更低的金钱赔偿、高于市场的律师费、以及对违法者的索赔执行不足等问题。这些年来，虽然国会议员和学者都试图解决这一问题，但是它仍然存在。本文邀请国会议员和学者以不同的方式思考这个存在已久问题的潜在解决方案。本文提出，通过对公益代位诉讼（qui tam litigation）的研究，尤其是《虚假申报法》(False Claims Act)的研究，能够提供一种可以极大地减少委托代理问题的独特方法。通过允许政府在涉及金钱损害赔偿的集体诉讼中担任首席法律顾问，当它认为一项诉讼有价值时，任何特定的集体及其各自的集体代理律师之间的经济激励被重新调整。虽然私人律师以牺牲客户的利益为代价，寻求最高金额的律师费，政府律师却没有同样的动机。在《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure）第23条中增加一项修正条款，允许公益代位诉讼，将允许政府充当集体诉讼的看门人，同时在政府决定不参与集体诉讼的情况下，为私人律师提起诉讼留有选择余地。通过提供不同的执法渠道，该修正提供了一个较好的机会，能够更好地防止私营部门的不当行为，阻止轻率无意义的诉讼，并改善原告群体的整体判决结果。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/nipping-it-in-the-bud-fixing-the-principal-agent-problem-in-class-actions-by-looking-to-qui-tam-litigation/

Getting “Arising out of” Right: Ford Motor Company and the Purpose of the “Arising out of” Prong in the Minimum Contacts Analysis

正确理解“起因于产生于”原则：福特汽车公司案以及“起因于产生于”原则在最低限度联系分析中的目的

作者：Jeremy Jacobson

Abstract：

In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to specific personal jurisdiction brought under the “arising out of or relating to” prong (also referred to as the “arising out of” prong) of the minimum contacts test for only the second time. In attempting to evade jurisdiction for injuries caused by defective cars in Montana and Minnesota, Ford argued that because the specific cars at issue were not originally sold in those fora, its purposeful contacts with the state did not proximately cause the injury at issue, and therefore the injuries did not “arise out of” those contacts. Ford’s argument is based on a misreading of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, the only case in which the Court analyzed that prong of the minimum contacts test. This Note seeks to explore the development and purposes underlying the “arising out of” prong, concluding that its purpose is to ensure a sufficient connection between the forum and the underlying claim such that the state has a legitimate regulatory interest and that litigation in the forum is convenient. After describing the development and purpose of the “arising out of” prong and contrasting it with the purpose underlying the “purposeful availment” prong, this Note addresses the ways in which challenges to jurisdiction are brought when it is unclear if the claim arises in a particular forum. This Note then takes on the Ford case and discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision fits into the framework describing what work the “arising out of” prong is doing in the jurisdictional analysis.

摘要：

在福特汽车公司诉蒙大拿州第八司法区法院一案中(Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court)，最高法院仅第二次审理了根据最低限度联系测试（minimum contacts test）下的“起因于或与之相关的”（arising out of or relating to）原则（也被称之为“起因于”原则/ “arising out of” prong）提出的对特定属人管辖权的质疑。福特公司试图逃避蒙大拿州和明尼苏达州对有缺陷汽车造成伤害案件的管辖权，其辩称，由于涉案的具体汽车最初不是在这些地方销售的，它与该州的有目的的接触并没有直接导致争议中的伤害，因此，这些伤害并非“起因于产生于”这些接触。福特公司的论点是基于对百时美施贵宝公司诉最高法院案(Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court)的误读，该案是法院分析最低限度联系测试的唯一案件。本文旨在探讨“起因于产生于”原则的发展和其背后所隐含的目的，并得出“起因于产生于”原则的目的是“确保法院和相关基础诉讼之间的充分联系，以便国家具有合法的监管利益，并且使得在法院进行诉讼是便捷的”这一结论。在讨论“起因于产生于”原则的发展和目的并将其与“有目的性的利用”（purposeful availment）原则潜在的目的进行对比之后，本文阐述了当不清楚诉讼是否在某一特定法院提出时，对管辖权提出异议和质疑的方式。随后，以福特案为例，讨论最高法院的裁决如何与描述“起因于产生于”这一原则在管辖权分析中作用的框架相适应。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/getting-arising-out-of-right-ford-motor-company-and-the-purpose-of-the-arising-out-of-prong-in-the-minimum-contacts-analysis/

Farmland Deregulation and Third-Stage Land Reform in Taiwan

台湾地区农地管制放宽与第三阶段土地改革

作者：Jessica Li

Abstract：

After decades in which agricultural land could only be owned by farmers, Taiwan’s 2000 amendments to the Agricultural Development Act opened up the farmland market to non-farmers. This decision, along with Taiwan’s accession to the World Trade Organization and the increasing globalization of trade, has had effects on an agricultural landscape that has traditionally consisted largely of smallholder farmers. This Note explores the 2000 amendments within both the historical context of first- and second-stage land reform in Taiwan and the current context of third-stage land reform and trade liberalization. The - effects - are - far-reaching—the most expensive farmland in the world, escalating non-agricultural use, fields left idle. This Note raises questions about the role of agriculture in developed societies and discusses the nuanced nature of farmland market deregulation.

摘要：

在农业用地只能由农民所有的几十年后，中国台湾地区2000年《农业发展条例》修正案（2000 amendments to the Agricultural Development Act）向非农民开放了农地市场。这一决定，以及台湾地区加入世界贸易组织和贸易全球化的日益加深，对传统上主要由小农组成的农业格局产生了影响。本文从台湾地区第一和第二阶段土地改革的历史背景以及第三阶段土地改革和贸易自由化的当前背景下探讨2000年的修正案。世界上最昂贵的农田，非农业用途不断升级，田地闲置——这些影响是深远的。本文提出了有关农业在发达社会中作用的问题，并讨论了农田市场放松管制的微妙本质。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/farmland-reregulation-and-third-stage-land-reform-in-taiwan/

The Racial Injustice and Political Process Failure of Prosecutorial Malapportionment

种族不公正以及检察院（投票权）分配不当所致的政治进程失败

作者：Michael Milov-Cordoba

Abstract：

District attorneys are responsible for the vast majority of criminal prosecutions in the United States, and most of them are elected by the public from prosecutorial districts. Yet these districts are massively malapportioned, giving rural,disproportionately white voters significantly more voting power over their district attorneys than urban voters, who are more likely to be voters of color. At the same time, our district attorney system is characterized by the sorts of political process failures that both triggered the Supreme Court’s Apportionment Revolution—requiring that legislative and executive districts comply with one-person, one-vote—and justify judicial intervention in other voting rights contexts. This Note argues that extending one-person, one-vote to prosecutorial districts - would - meaningfully address prosecutorial political process failure and have a number of salutary effects on our democracy: It would rebalance the distribution  of voters’ influence over district attorneys,producing salutary downstream effects on our criminal justice system; it may increase challenger rates, leading to healthier levels of prosecutorial democratic competition; and it would further core democratic norms, including respect for the equal dignity of voters.

摘要：

地方检察官负责美国绝大多数的刑事诉讼，他们中的大多数是由检察区的公众选举产生的。然而，这些选区的比例严重失调，与更有可能是有色人种选民的城市选民相比，农村地区的白人选民对其地方检察官的投票权要大得多。与此同时，我们的地区检察官制度会导致各种政治进程失败，这些失败既引发了最高法院的分配革命，即要求立法区和行政区遵守一人一票，也证明了司法干预其他领域投票权的正当性。本文认为，将一人一票扩大到检察区将有意义地解决检察政治进程失败的问题，并对我们的民主制度产生诸多有益影响：它将重新平衡选民对地区检察官的影响力分配，并对我们的刑事司法系统产生有益的下游影响；它可能会增加挑战者的比例，从而导致检察院的民主竞争更为健康；它将促进核心的民主规范，包括尊重选民的平等尊严。

链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-1/the-racial-injustice-and-political-process-failure-of-prosecutorial-malapportionment/

-注释-

[1]译者注：The term “qui tam” comes from the Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which means, “he who sues for the king as well as himself.” A qui tam lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a whistleblower to enforce the federal False Claims Act or analogous state statutes, laws that impose civil liability on persons or companies who knowingly make or cause others to make false claims for the payment of government funds.

公益代位诉讼"qui tam "来自拉丁语 "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur"，意思是“为国王和自己起诉的人”。公益代位诉讼是由举报人提起的诉讼，目的是执行联邦《虚假申报法》或类似州级法规，这些法律规定对故意提出或导致他人提出虚假索赔以获得政府资金的个人或公司负有民事责任。

（参考https://www.vsg-law.com/what-is-qui-tam/）