Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 19 of 30 justify the restrictions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If a restriction is not “severe,” then “the State’s reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions will generally be sufficient to uphold the statute if they serve important state interests.” Price, 540 F.3d at 109. In sum, therefore, this Court must first, examine the extent to which the April 27 Resolution (and the consequent cancellation of the presidential primary) impose on Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ (1) opportunity to appear on the ballot as candidates, and (2) right to support candidates as voters, and decide whether Defendants’ actions qualify as “severe” or “reasonable, nondiscriminatory” restrictions, and second, consider the legitimacy and strength of the rationale put forward by Defendants, and determine whether it justifies the extent of the burden on Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ rights under the applicable framework. c. The Burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights The New York Democratic Party has opted to conduct the selection of delegates to the Convention through a primary held under New York State law. See Delegate Selection Plan § II(A)(3) (“[A]ll pledged delegates and alternates shall be allocated among the [p]residential [c]andidates in proportion to the votes such [c]andidates receive in the [p]rimary[.]”). The Democratic Commissioners, acting pursuant to § 2-122-a(13), the statute empowering the BOE commissioners of a given political party to eliminate candidates who have suspended their campaign or announced that they are no longer seeking the presidency, removed Yang, Sanders, and the other presidential contenders from the primary ballot because they suspended their campaigns, or announced that they were no longer seeking the presidency. April 27 Resolution at 1–2; Compl. ¶ 66. Section 2-122-a(13) may reflect reasonable policy objectives in the abstract, and the Court need not assess its facial validity to decide this case. See Field Day, LLC v. Cty. of Suffolk, 463 F.3d 167, 174 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A ‘facial challenge’ to a statute considers 19