defective, Individual Plaintiffs argue, for purposes of standing, that their claim is based on the denial of their votes. But on the merits, Plaintiffs appear to have abandoned this theory of harm and instead raise their broader argument that the lack of a uniform prohibition against notice-and-cure is unconstitutional.38 They assert this theory on behalf of both Individual Plaintiffs and the Trump Campaign. That Plaintiffs are trying to mix-and-match claims to bypass contrary precedent is not lost on the Court. The Court will thus analyze Plaintiffs’ claims as if they had been raised properly and asserted as one whole for purposes of standing and the merits. Accordingly, the Court considers Plaintiffs as alleging two equalprotection claims. The first being on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs whose ballots were cancelled. And the second being on behalf of the Trump Campaign and raising the broad Bush v. Gore arguments that Plaintiffs allege is the main focus of this lawsuit.39 The Court analyzes both claims separately for purposes of standing and the merits analysis. III. STANDING Plaintiffs lack standing to raise either of their claims. “Article III of the United States Constitution limits the power of the federal judiciary to ‘cases’ and 38 39 To the extent that Plaintiffs may still argue that votes have been unconstitutionally diluted (see, FAC ¶ 97), those claims are barred by the Third Circuit’s decision in Bognet. Plaintiffs essentially conceded that they were only setting forth the vote-denial theory for purposes of standing when they stated on the record at oral argument that they believed Individual Plaintiffs’ votes were lawfully cancelled. Hr’g. Tr. 110:22-111:02. In briefing, Plaintiffs attempt to revive their previously-dismissed poll-watcher claims. Count I does not seek relief for those allegations, but the Court considers them, infra. - 12 -