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.