As a Pennsylvania court ruling casts uncertainty over the future of mail-in ballots in the state and the battle over congressional redistricting heats up, lawyers embroiled in the state’s election litigation fundamentally disagree on what the fight is even about. Where one side describes a pragmatic question of constitutional law, the other sees attempts to pull the country toward authoritarianism. 

The major players in Pennsylvania’s voting litigation say that, even with the disputes piling up, their views have not affected courtroom civility. But beneath the (mostly) polite conduct lie opposing concerns that are leading to unprecedented volumes of election lawsuits. 

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]