X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Marc Elias Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, addresses media outside the U.S. Supreme Court after arguing two redistricting cases in December 2016. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)

The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court order Monday evening blocking a ruling that would have extended absentee voting in Wisconsin’s Tuesday primary was swiftly assailed as a partisan decision that forces residents to choose between efforts to safeguard their lives amid the virus pandemic and the ability to exercise the right to vote.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Mike Scarcella

Mike Scarcella is a senior editor in Washington on ALM Media's regulatory desk. Contact him at mscarcella@alm.com. On Twitter: @MikeScarcella. Mike works on a slate of newsletters: Supreme Court Brief | Higher Law | Compliance Hot Spots | Labor of Law.

More from this author

Marcia Coyle

Marcia Coyle, based in Washington, covers the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact her at mcoyle@alm.com. On Twitter: @MarciaCoyle

More from this author

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.