Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 22 of 30 Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Suh Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Vogel Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Small Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Hwang Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Medeiros Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; Green Aff. ¶¶ 4–5; see also Mativetsky Aff. ¶¶ 4–5 (non-party candidate for delegate discussing similar desire and effort to participate in election); Gluck Aff. ¶¶ 5 (same); Intervenor Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5–14. Of course, those opportunities would have also been lost if Yang or Sanders had taken formal action to remove himself from the ballot under existing law. See N.Y. Election Law § 6146(1) (“A person designated as a candidate for nomination or for party position . . . may, in a certificate signed and acknowledged by him, and filed as provided in this article, decline the designation or nomination.”); id. § 2-122-a(2) (applying § 6-146 to presidential primaries). But Yang states that he did not take those steps, with the goal of allowing his supporters to express their views and influence the Convention by voting for him in the New York primary. Compl. ¶ 78; Yang Aff. ¶¶ 6, 8. Sanders, too, did not formally remove his name from the ballot. And although delegates are Democratic Party offices selected according to party rules, Brehm Decl. ¶¶ 29, 32, neither the New York nor the national Democratic Party has amended the Delegate Selection Plan, which provides that delegates will be allocated based on the results of the primary election conducted by the state. See Delegate Selection Plan § II(A)(3). Notwithstanding Delegate Plaintiffs’ desire to compete for delegate spots, and ability to do so under Democratic Party rules, the April 27 Resolution and cancellation of the primary ruined their chances. It also eliminated the opportunity for voters to express their political views by supporting Delegate Plaintiffs. Def. Opp. at 14–15. The Democratic Commissioners’ adoption of the April 27 Resolution, which was authorized by a provision of law that was not in force at the time the candidates made their decisions to suspend their campaigns, imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ right to “associate for the 22