Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 28 of 30 avoid issuing injunctions that would postpone or disrupt an election. See, e.g., Silberberg v. Bd. of Elections of the State of New York, 216 F. Supp. 3d 411, 420–21 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Flores, 382 F. Supp. 3d at 245. But the same rule also counsels against allowing a state to refuse to conduct a consequential race when it is possible for it to safely go forward. Of course, even faced with such serious concerns, “federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020). The primary, however, is still almost two months away, giving Defendants and the public enough time to respond appropriately to this order, and for the election to proceed in a safe manner. See also New York Progress & Prot. PAC, 733 F.3d at 489 (holding that injunction allowing political action committee to solicit donations in excess of $150,000 was not untimely, though sought only 41 days before date of election). Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors have made a strong showing of irreparable harm without emergency relief, established a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and demonstrated that the balance of equities tips decisively in their favor and that the public interest would be served by such relief. Accordingly, the Court holds that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors have established their entitlement to a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IV. Scope of Relief The Court grants the preliminary injunction “to restore the status quo ante.” United States v. Adler’s Creamery, 107 F.2d 987, 990 (2d Cir. 1939). “The purpose of an injunction [pending litigation] is to guard against a change in conditions which will hamper or prevent the granting of such relief as may be found proper after the trial of the issues. Its ordinary function 28