Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 26 of 30 ballot will protect the public from COVID-19 only to a limited extent. But barring Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors from participating in an election for party delegates will sharply curtail their associational rights. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors have made a clear and substantial showing of likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Democratic Commissioners’ April 27 Resolution eliminating presidential candidates who suspended their campaigns or announced that they were no longer seeking the presidency, and the consequent cancellation of the presidential primary election, violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The equities tip strongly in Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ favor for the reasons already discussed. In assessing the balance of equities, “the court must ‘balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief,’ as well as ‘the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.’” Make the Rd. New York v. Cuccinelli, 419 F. Supp. 3d 647, 665 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24). Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ injuries arising from the adoption of the April 27 Resolution and cancellation of the presidential primary are substantial. If all but one of the presidential candidates are removed from the ballot and the primary is not held, Delegate Plaintiffs will be deprived of the opportunity to compete for delegate slots and shape the course of events at the Convention, and voters will lose the chance to express their support for delegates who share their views. The loss of these First Amendment rights is a heavy hardship. See New York Progress & Prot. PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483, 488 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that denial of 26