the 2000 Presidential Election. Despite Plaintiffs’ assertions, Bush does not stand for the proposition that every rule or system must ensure uniform treatment. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said so, explaining: “[t]he question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections.”135 Instead, the Court explained that its holding concerned a “situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards.”136 Where a state court has ordered such a remedy, the Supreme Court held that “there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.”137 In other words, the lack of guidance from a court constituted an equal-protection violation. In the instant matter, Plaintiffs are not challenging any court action as a violation of equal protection, and they do not allege that Secretary Boockvar’s guidance differed from county to county, or that Secretary Boockvar told some counties to cure ballots and others not to. That some counties may have chosen to implement the guidance (or not), or to implement it differently, does not constitute an equal-protection violation. “[M]any courts that have recognized that counties may, consistent with equal protection, employ entirely different election 135 136 137 Bush, 531 U.S. at 109 (emphasis added). Id. Id. - 35 -