the General Assembly’s failure to uniformly prohibit (or permit) the notice-andcure procedure is unconstitutional. 1. Individual Plaintiffs States have “broad authority to regulate the conduct of elections, including federal ones.”103 “This authority includes ‘broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.’”104 Because states must have freedom to regulate elections if “some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes,”105 such regulation is generally insulated from the stringent requirements of strict scrutiny.106 Instead, state regulation that burdens voting rights is normally subject to the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, which requires that a court “weigh the asserted injury to the right to vote against the ‘precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.’”107 Under this test, “any ‘law respecting the right to vote – whether it governs voter qualifications, candidate selection, or the voting process,’ is subjected to ‘a deferential “important 103 104 105 106 107 Griffin v. Roupas, 385 F.3d 1128, 1130 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing U.S. Const. Art. I, § 4, cl. 1). Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., 2020 WL 5997680, at *38 (quoting Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 543 (2013)). Id. (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992)). Burdick, 504 U.S. at 432-33. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 190 (2008) (quoting Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434). - 28 -