observe election law violations.”127 The second claims that the “use of notice/cure procedures violated equal protection because it was deliberately done in counties where defendants knew that mail ballots would favor Biden/Democrats.”128 The former finds no support in the operative pleading, and neither states an equalprotection violation. Count I of the FAC makes no mention of disparity in treatment of observers based on which campaign they represented. Instead, Count I discusses the use of “standardless” procedures. These are two separate theories of an equal protection violation. That deficiency aside, to the extent this new theory is even pled, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead that there was “uneven treatment” of Trump and Biden watchers and representatives. Paragraphs 132-143 of the FAC are devoted to this alleged disparity. None of these paragraphs support Plaintiffs’ argument. A selection below: “Defendants have not allowed watchers and representatives to be present . . .”129 “In Centre County, the central pre-canvassing location was a large ballroom. The set-up was such that the poll watchers did not have meaningful access to observe the canvassing and tabulation process of mail-in and absentee ballots, and in fact, the poll watchers and observers who were present could not actually observe the ballots such that they could confirm or object to the validity of the ballots.”130 127 128 129 130 Doc. 170 at 29. Count I makes no mention of the poll-watching allegations, nor does it seek relief for any violation of law on the basis of those allegations. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court considers whether these allegations state a claim. Id. Doc. 125 at ¶ 134 (emphasis added). Id. at ¶ 135 (emphasis added). - 33 -