## Facts

- Pennsylvania enacted Act 77 (2019), authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting and setting rules for submission and receipt of mail ballots.
- The Election Code did not require a formal statewide “notice-and-cure” process for mail-ballot defects.
- Some counties notified voters of certain mail-ballot defects and allowed correction; other counties did not.
- The Trump Campaign and two individual voters alleged their mail ballots were canceled without an opportunity to cure.
- Plaintiffs also alleged limits on the proximity and access of Republican observers during canvassing/counting of mail ballots in certain counties.
- After the November 3, 2020 election and before the scheduled statewide certification, plaintiffs sued to halt certification and sought relief that would effectively invalidate large numbers of ballots.
- Defendants (state election officials and county boards) and intervenor-defendants moved to dismiss; plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief and leave to further amend.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek statewide relief based on alleged ballot-curing disparities and observer-access restrictions.
2. Whether county-to-county variation in notice-and-cure practices plausibly stated an Equal Protection violation.
3. Whether alleged observer-access restrictions plausibly stated Equal Protection or Due Process violations.
4. Whether the alleged election irregularities plausibly amounted to a Due Process violation requiring extraordinary relief, including blocking certification or invalidating large numbers of votes.
5. Whether leave to amend should be granted or denied as futile.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
- The court denied leave to file a further amended complaint as futile and denied other pending motions, including requests for preliminary injunctive relief, as moot.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to establish standing for the relief sought and failed to plead plausible Equal Protection or Due Process violations.
- The court rejected the requested remedy as extraordinary and unsupported by pleaded facts connecting alleged harms to statewide disenfranchisement or decertification.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct, and likely redressable by the requested relief; generalized grievances about election administration are insufficient.
- Equal Protection is not violated by non-uniform election administration absent facts showing intentional discrimination, invidious classification, or a severe burden on the right to vote.
- A county’s discretionary decision to offer voters an additional opportunity beyond what state law requires does not, without more, establish unconstitutional disparate treatment of similarly situated voters.
- Election-related Due Process claims require allegations of substantial irregularities that fundamentally undermine fairness; conclusory or speculative assertions do not state a claim.
- Sweeping relief that would disenfranchise large numbers of voters or nullify an election result requires compelling, specific factual allegations and a close fit between the alleged violation and the proposed remedy.
- Leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile, particularly where core defects are legal (standing, cognizable claim, or remedy mismatch) rather than pleading detail.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the post-election challenge because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a constitutional violation or establish standing for the statewide relief sought, and it refused to entertain an extraordinary remedy that would invalidate or block certification of millions of votes without concrete, legally sufficient allegations.


Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 502 F. Supp. 3d 899 (M.D. Pa. 2020)