right to vote was denied. Their prayer for relief seeks, in pertinent part: (1) an order, declaration, or injunction from this Court prohibiting the Defendants from certifying the results of the 2020 General Election in Pennsylvania on a Commonwealth-wide basis; and (2) another order prohibiting Defendants from certifying the results which include ballots the Defendants permitted to be cured. Neither of these orders would redress the injury the Individual Plaintiffs allege they have suffered. Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote. “Standing is measured based on the theory of harm and the specific relief requested.”58 It is not “dispensed in gross: A plaintiff's remedy must be tailored to redress the plaintiff's particular injury.”59 Here, the answer to invalidated ballots is not to invalidate millions more. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown that their injury would be redressed by the relief sought. B. Trump Campaign The standing inquiry as to the Trump Campaign is particularly nebulous because neither in the FAC nor in its briefing does the Trump Campaign clearly assert what its alleged injury is. Instead, the Court was required to embark on an 58 59 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-CV-966, 2020 WL 5997680, at *37 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2020) (citing Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1934). Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1934 (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 353 (2006)). - 18 -