Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 27 of 30 First Amendment expressive rights constitutes “significant” hardship); Billington v. Hayduk, 439 F. Supp. 971, 974 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (‘[T]he hardship to plaintiff in not being considered . . . as a candidate in the upcoming election in possible violation of his rights far outweighs any inconvenience that defendants might suffer in having to include plaintiff’s name on the ballot.”). The costs to Defendants of granting the requested relief are also significant. Defendants estimate that conducting the presidential primary will require 615 additional poll sites, 22 additional early voting sites, 4,617 additional poll workers, and will cost the state approximately $5.6 million. Brehm Decl. ¶¶ 41, 51. The state undertook to bear those costs, however, when it assumed the responsibility of regulating and holding the primary election, and the state was presumably prepared to shoulder them before the adoption of the April 27 Resolution last week. And though Defendants may incur additional costs if they take protective measures consistent with public safety, the scope of those added expenses is unclear—whereas Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ loss is concrete and immediate. There is also a strong public interest in permitting the presidential primary to proceed with the full roster of qualified candidates. “[S]ecuring First Amendment rights is in the public interest.” New York Progress & Prot. PAC, 733 F.3d at 488. Specifically, the public has an interest in being presented with several viable options in an election. See Hirschfeld v. Bd. of Elections in N.Y.C, 984 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[T]he public’s interest in having [plaintiff] as an additional choice on the ballot clearly outweighed any interest the [BOE] may have had in removing [plaintiff’s] name two business days before the [g]eneral [e]lection.”). Moreover, because “the conduct of elections is so essential to a state’s political self-determination,” there is a “strong public interest in having elections go forward.” Flores v. Town of Islip, 382 F. Supp. 3d 197, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citations omitted). Courts frequently rely on this principle to 27