“In Philadelphia County, poll watchers and canvass representatives were denied access altogether in some instances.”131 “In Delaware County, observers were denied access to a back room counting area . . .”132 None of these allegations (or the others in this section) claim that the Trump Campaign’s watchers were treated differently than the Biden campaign’s watchers. Simply alleging that poll watchers did not have access or were denied access to some areas does not plausibly plead unequal treatment. Without actually alleging that one group was treated differently than another, Plaintiffs’ first argument falls flat. Likewise, Plaintiffs cannot salvage their notice-and-cure theory by invoking Bush v. Gore.133 Plaintiffs claim that the Equal Protection clause “imposes a ‘minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters’ and forbids voting systems and practices that distribute resources in ‘standardless’ fashion, without ‘specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.’”134 Plaintiffs attempt to craft a legal theory from Bush, but they fail because: (1) they misapprehend the issues at play in that case; and (2) the facts of this case are distinguishable. Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Bush v. Gore would broaden the application of that case far beyond what the Supreme Court of the United States endorsed. In Bush, the Supreme Court stopped a recount of votes in Florida in the aftermath of 131 132 133 134 Id. at ¶ 136 (emphasis added). Id. at ¶ 137 (emphasis added). 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Doc. 170 at 13. - 34 -