An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge - 37 -

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution for Pennsylvania to give counties the discretion to adopt "notice and cure" policies (to provide notice to voters whose mail-in ballots were procedurally defective and an opportunity to cure their ballots).

Alleged Acts: Following an earlier decision (Democratic Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar), which held that counties were not required to implement "notice and cure" policies, the Secretary of State sent an email encouraging counties to adopt these policies. Accordingly, some counties adopted such policies and others did not. The complaint alleges that by enabling counties to implement "notice and cure" policies, Pennsylvania has created a standard less system that unconstitutionally discriminated against individual voters and the Trump Campaign. The complaint also alleges a violation to the Equal Protection Clause stemming from the restricted access of election observers during the count. As a result, the complaint requests that the court invalidate almost 7 million ballots without putting forward any evidence of fraud.

Procedural history: Following an appeal on this Court's decision, the Appellate Court upheld.

Summary: The Court found that there was a lack of standing for both the individual plaintiffs (due to a failure to establish causation or redressability) and the Trump Campaign. Even if the plaintiffs were able to establish standing, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not establish an Equal Protection claim. First, the plaintiffs do not allege disparate treatment between Biden campaign observers and Trump campaign observers. Second, the fact that some counties chose to implement "notice and cure" policies and others did not does not constitute an equal protection claim. The plaintiffs are not alleging that the Secretary of State's guidance on "notice and cure" policies, nor that she instructed some counties to implement the polices and others not to do so. Third, the Court found that expanding the rights of others to vote does is not a burden on the right to vote, and that the complaint cannot stand as far as it alleges that "the state is not imposing a restriction on someone else’s right to vote.”

Conclusion: The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Legal Issue(s)

Language of Decision

Geolocation

Latitude: 40.26368

Longitude: -76.890739