MEMORANDUM
States have the power to regulate elections. The Pennsylvania Election Code, enacted in 1937, regulates the electoral process in the Commonwealth in numerous ways. This case focuses on one specific Election Code provision, Section 2687(b), which requires poll watchers to be qualified electors of the county in which they serve. In other words, voters appointed to serve as poll watchers can perform that function only within the county where they are registered to vote. The Republican Party of Pennsylvania and eight duly qualified registered electors residing in various counties within the Commonwealth (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortés seeking to
Prior to 2004, Section 2687(b) required poll watchers to serve within a much narrower area—their election districts, or precincts. That year the Pennsylvania General Assembly amended the statute to allow poll watchers to work anywhere within their county, the current geographic boundary. Plaintiffs now want the Court to effectively amend the Election Code again and allow poll watchers to cross county lines and monitor voting anywhere in the Commonwealth. Indeed, there is a bill pending in the State House of Representatives which would do just that, though the bill has languished in that body since January of 2015 without making it to the House floor for a vote. Plaintiffs seek an immediate preliminary and then permanent injunction which would “last until such time as the Legislature enacts remedial legislation” that cures Section 2687(b)’s alleged constitutional defects. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the provision violates their Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights and their rights to free speech and association under the First Amendment.
Plaintiffs seek an extraordinary remedy. Because they have unreasonably delayed in doing so, and because they cannot satisfy any of the requirements necessary for the grant of injunctive relief, the Court denies the motion.
I.
The United States Constitution reserves to the states the power to regulate elections. It instructs that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 4, The states have long exercised this authority, “en-actftng] comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes.” Anderson v. Celebrezze,
In 1937, the Pennsylvania General Assembly crafted just such a comprehensive statutory scheme: the Pennsylvania Election Code. Under Section 2687 of the Code, candidates may appoint two poll watchers to each election district in which they appear on the ballot. 25 P.S. § 2687(a). Political parties and political bodies
Poll watchers are permitted to participate in these activities partly in order to help “guard the integrity of the vote.” Tiryak v. Jordan,
The creation and role of poll watchers is of course only one small part of the Election Code’s regulatory framework. The Code also governs county boards of elections, district election officers, election districts, polling places, elector qualifications, party organization, the nomination process, ballot formats and quantities, the use of voting machines and other electronic voting systems, the general conduct of primaries and elections, absentee voting, and the tabulation of election returns. See generally 25 P.S. Ch.14.
Election procedures and processes are managed by each of the Commonwealth’s sixty-seven counties. Each county has a board of elections, which oversees the conduct of all elections within the county. 25 P.S. § 2641(a). The county board of elections selects, fixes and at times alters the polling locations of new election districts. Id. § 2726. Individual counties are also tasked with the preservation of all ballots cast in that county,- id. § 2649, and have the authority to investigate fraud and report irregularities or any other issues to the district attorney, id. § 2642. Counties are also free to utilize different voting systems, and presently ten different systems are in place across the Commonwealth. (Def.’s Ex. 2, ECP No. 19); see also (Hr’g Tr., at 73:21-22). Any political party or political body entitled to have watchers at any registration, primary or general election can also appoint watchers to represent the party at any public session of the county board of elections. Id. § 2650(a). Like poll watchers, those watchers must be qualified electors of the relevant county. Id. Decentralized control is also seen at the election district, or precinct, level. Each district has an election board which is composed of a judge of election and majority and minority inspectors of elections, id. § 2671, and each member of that board must be a qualified elector of the election district in which they serve, id. § 2672.
The Election Code contains numerous provisions designed to maintain and uphold the integrity of the vote. The Code provides for the appointment of “overseers of election” who carry greater authority than poll watchers. Id. § 2685. Section 2685 directs the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas to appoint two election overseers from different political parties upon the petition of five or more “duly registered electors of any election district.” Id. Election overseers have the right to be present with the officers of an' election “within the enclosed space during the entire time the primary or election is held.” Id. Poll watchers have no such right— Section 2687(b) requires that poll watchers remain “outside the enclosed space” where ballots are counted or voting machines canvassed. Id. § 2687(b). Election overseers also have the authority “to challenge
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes courts to issue preliminary injunctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy,” which the Court may grant only “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Although Plaintiffs need not prove their case with “airtight certainty,” the moving party nevertheless “bears a heavy burden on a motion for a preliminary injunction.” Punnett v. Carter,
III.
A.
As an initial matter and before addressing the four requirements necessary to obtain an injunction, Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed filing their Complaint and Motion, something which weighs decidedly against granting the extraordinary relief they seek. The delay is particularly relevant where, as here, an election is looming. United States v. City of Philadelphia, No. 06-4592,
There is good reason to avoid last-minute intervention in a state’s election process. Any intervention at this point risks practical concerns including disruption,
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed these principles on the very day of the preliminary injunction hearing in this case. In Crookston v. Johnson,
Plaintiffs waited until eighteen days before the election to bring this case. They filed their Complaint and Motion late in the afternoon on Friday, October 21, 2016. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The Court became aware of the filing when it was entered on the docket on Monday, October 24, 2016. See (ECF No. 1). The Court convened that day a telephone conference with counsel for the parties and ordered the Secretary to file his response by Wednesday, October 26. (ECF Nos. 5-6.) Less than two days after receiving the Secretary’s response, the Court held the hearing on the preliminary injunction request.
There was no need for this judicial fire drill and Plaintiffs offer no reasonable explanation or justification for the harried process they created. At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that they were waiting for the General Assembly to pass House Bill 29, which would amend Section 2687(b) by requiring only that a poll watcher be a qualified registered elector in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See H.B. 29, 200th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2015); see also (Compl,, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-1); (Hr’g Tr., at 143:1-21). The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in January 2015 and remains in committee. See H.B. 29, 200th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2015), Having suddenly lost faith in the legislative process, Plaintiffs ask the Court to assume the General Assembly’s role and enact House Bill 29 by judicial fiat. Such action would be inappropriate for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that at this late hour courts should not disrupt an impending election “absent a powerful reason for doing so.” Crookston,
Plaintiffs contend that Section 2687(b) violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue that by limiting poll watchers to the county in which they are qualified electors, Section 2687(b) hampers poll watchers’ fundamental right to vote. (Pis.’ Mem. Supp. of Mot. for TRO and Inj, (“Pis.’ Mem.”), at 8, EOF No. 2.) Plaintiffs also claim that Section 2687(b) infringes on their rights to free speech and association under the First Amendment by narrowing the pool of potential watchers at any polling place to the county level. (Pis.’ Mem., at 14-15.) The Court now examines whether plaintiffs have established the required elements entitling them to injunctive relief. See supra Part II.
i.
To show a likelihood of success, “on an application for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff need only prove a prima fade case, not a certainty that he or she will win.” See, e.g., Highmark, Inc. v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 173 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2948.3 (3d ed. 1998)); see also Punnett v. Carter,
In an attempt to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal protection and due process claims, Plaintiffs assert that poll watchers “shine a light on polling place procedures to prevent the violation of election law,” and “when unqualified electors are permitted to vote within a district, the legitimate votes of all qualified electors in that district are diluted and their fundamental right to vote is therefore violated.” (Pis.’ Mem., at 9) The crux of this argument is that if a qualified, registered voter casts a valid ballot in one county and a fraudulent ballot is cast for a different candidate in another county, the fraudulent ballot effectively negates the valid ballot, and the qualified, registered elector’s vote is diluted. See (Id.)
Plaintiffs correctly note that “a free and fair election requires ballot security.” (Id.) While this statement is uncontroversial, the Plaintiffs’ preoccupation with the role of poll watchers to deter purported voter fraud disregards other aspects of the regulatory framework the Commonwealth designed to ensure ballot integrity and thus prevent vote dilution. See (Compl. ¶¶21, 56); see also supra Part I. Plaintiffs’ concerns over potential voter fraud—whether perpetrated by putative electors or poll workers themselves—appear more effectively addressed by election overseers than poll watchers, to take just one example. The overseers have greater authority to question voters, and may be within the closed space in which ballots are counted and machines are canvassed, while poll watchers can do neither of those things. Compare 25 P.S. § 2865 (governing elections overseers), with id. § 2687 (governing poll watchers).
Vote dilution is certainly a viable equal protection theory in certain contexts. Such claims can allege that a state has enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device “to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.” See Miller v. Johnson, 515
Plaintiffs also argue that Section 2687(b) violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses by “arbitrarily and unreasonably distinguishing] between voters within the same electoral district by allowing some, but not others, to serve as poll watchers.” (Pis.’ Mem.; at 10.) They contend that Section 2687(b) therefore permits “some people, but -not others, to exercise fundamental rights—especially the fundamental right to participate in the political process.” (Id. at 11.) Plaintiffs argue in their briefing that the statute should therefore be subject to strict scrutiny
Voting is a fundamental right. Reynolds,
Every regulation on elections will “invariably impose some burden upon individual voters.” Id. at 433,
Where the right to vote is not burdened by a state’s regulation on the election process, however, the state need only provide a rational basis for the statute. See Donatelli, 2 F.3d at 514 & n.10 (declining to apply Anderson or Burdick’s intermediate standards because the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights were not burdened by state law); see also Voting for Am., Inc. v. Andrade,
Plaintiffs have not shown that Section 2687(b) burdens their fundamental right to vote or in any way limits their range of choices in the voting booth. The individual voters who bring this ease along with the Republican Party are not hindered in their exercise of the franchise: unlike the plaintiff in Burdick, where the State of Hawaii banned write-in voting, Burdick,
Because Section 2687(b) places no burden on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the statute need only withstand rational-basis review. Statutes evaluated for a rational basis are “accorded a strong presumption of validity.” Donatelli,
There is a rational basis for Section 2687(b)’s requirement that poll watchers be qualified electors in the county in which they work. The Secretary notes that in 1937, the General Assembly enacted a county-based scheme to manage elections within the state, and consistent with that scheme the legislature endeavored to allow county election officials to oversee a manageable portion of the state in all aspects of the process, including in credentialing poll watchers. (Hr’g Tr., at 197:12-198:17, 200:3-4.) In short, Pennsylvania opted to design a county-by-county system of elections; in doing so it ensured as much coherency in this patchwork system as possible. To that end it ensured that participants in the election—voters and watchers alike—were qualified electors in the relevant county. See (id). The legislature’s decision to allow county election officials to credential only poll watchers from their own county is rationally related to the state’s interest in maintaining its county-run election system; each county election official is tasked with managing credentials for a discrete part of the state’s population. As the Secretary’s counsel noted at the hearing, the legislature chose to “draw the lines” at the county level, something entirely rational in fashioning a scheme for a state as large as Pennsylvania. See (id. at 200:6-19). Even if allowing poll watchers to serve anywhere in Pennsylvania imposed minimal or negligible additional burdens on the Commonwealth and the counties, see (id. at 211:9-17), that does not render the legislature’s original policy decision irrational or illegitimate.
ii.
Plaintiffs also have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm should the Court not issue the preliminary injunction. To do so, Plaintiffs “must demonstrate potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following a trial. The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.” Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc.,
Plaintiffs first claim that irreparable harm is presumed whenever a constitutional violation is asserted. They fail to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, however, which undermines their argument that the asserted harm is automatically irreparable. See supra subsection III. B.i. Without some showing of a recognizable legal harm, the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ timing also works against them here, as the emergent nature of this suit is the Plaintiffs’ own doing. Cf. Colón-Merrero v. Conty-Pérez,
Plaintiffs also assert that denying an injunction “could have a determinative effect on the election.” (Pis.’ Mot., at 16.) This highly speculative concern is insufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. See McGraw-Hill,
The harm to the registered-elector Plaintiffs is also unclear. They assert that they are injured by being limited to poll watching in their own county, even when votes outside of their county impact elections they are interested in. Only one witness testified for the Plaintiffs at the hearing—Ralph Wike III, one of the registered electors who filed the lawsuit. Mr. Wike testified that he is a registered voter in Delaware County, (Hr’g Tr., at 23:22-24:1), and that he has served as a poll watcher in that county before, (id. at 25:24-26:6). Mr. Wike further testified that he would sign up to serve as a poll watcher in a county other than his own, but is not permitted to do so under current law. (Id. at 24:10-18.) Mr. Wike was the Plaintiffs’ only effort at establishing irreparable harm—ostensibly on the theory that once the election passes his inability to serve as a poll watcher outside his home county cannot be undone. (Id. at 173:5-10.) Given the extraordinary nature of injunctive relief and the accompanying “heavy burden on a motion for a preliminary injunction” on the Plaintiffs, Punnett,
iii.
The balance of equities also disfavors an injunction. To evaluate this element, the Court must weigh “the potential injury to the plaintiff if an injunction
The Commonwealth, meanwhile, will be harmed if the Court enjoins one of its duly enacted laws. See Maryland v. King,
• Commissioner Marks also explained that county election officials are currently working to ensure that absentee ballots are processed and logged. He estimated that as of the time of the hearing, there were roughly 100,000 outstanding absentee ballots that would be returned to county election officials across the Commonwealth. See (id. at 57:1-17; 70:7-11). Commissioner Marks also noted that county election officials are working to ensure that polling places have the necessary documents and supplies, (id. at 70:11-16), that poll workers are trained, (id. at 70:17-19), and, of course, that poll watchers are properly credentialed. The counties must also field inquiries from voters regarding the status of absentee ballots and the location of polling places, among other things. (Id. at 70:21-71:3.)
Debbie Olivieri, the Berks County Elections Director, also testified at the hearing. Ms. Olivieri is currently overseeing the delivery of voting machines, (id. at 117:14-15), and the printing of poll books, (id. at 117:16-17). Most pressing, Ms. Olivieri has “thousands of absentee ballots coming in and being delivered.” (Id. at 117:18-19.) Any additional, unforeseen work will require prioritization; as Ms. Olivieri testified, “[t]he closer we get to an election, the less time I’m going to have to prepare numerous.. .watcher certificates.” (Id. at 116:5-7.)
Allowing poll watchers to work in any county in the Commonwealth could result in certain counties being inundated with prospective poll watchers seeking credentials. Ms. Olivieri stated that any influx of potential poll watchers at this time would impact the workflow and other duties she
At the hearing, Plaintiffs noted that such an influx could theoretically occur under Section 2687(b) today, because the total number of poll watcher positions that parties and candidates are permitted to fill is the same with or without Section 2687(b)’s county-elector requirement. See (id. at 122:16-25, 131:13-132:23). While technically true, such an occurrence would be highly unlikely as a practical matter for two reasons. First, many counties prearrange with the parties and candidates to start the credentialing process early. (Id. at 115:23-116:5.) Second, counties would be inundated with requests to credential poll watchers under Section 2687(b) as it stands if the political parties or candidates were able to fill those positions with qualified electors from those counties—an unlikely scenario, given the Plaintiffs’ contention that they are unable to do so. See (Compl. ¶¶ 73-74); see also (Hr’g Tr., at 179:14-18).
Ms. Olivieri’s testimony foreshadows a more likely problem, though one the Plaintiffs did not acknowledge, much less address. Plaintiffs’ counsel was reticent to admit the extent to which suspected voter fraud in Philadelphia motivates their request for an injunction. See (Hr’g Tr., at 162:16-163:17.) In their Complaint, however, Plaintiffs cite the Republican Party’s “interest in having its poll watchers monitor the polls within Philadelphia County to ensure the integrity of the vote.” (Compl. ¶ 47.) Plaintiffs repeat this concern in the brief supporting their Motion. (Pis.’ Mem., at 17.) To the extent that the Party wishes to allocate newly available poll watchers on election day, it will of course send them to Philadelphia. The poll watchers will all need to be properly credentialed in Philadelphia County and they will all seek those credentials between now and election day. With 1,686 election districts in Philadelphia County, the Republican Party alone, not counting any individual candidates, is allotted 5,085 poll watcher positions.
While it is therefore very unlikely that the counties will be burdened by large numbers of potential poll watchers absent an injunction, it is much more likely that such a burdensome influx would result if an injunction were issued. As county workers focus on myriad critical tasks in the final days before the election, an injunction’s likely effect of increasing their workload (perhaps to the point of impossibility) weighs strongly against granting it. See (Hr’g Tr., at 116:14-117:21, 134:10-136:3).
iv.
Granting the preliminary injunction would not be in the public interest. Particularly in cases “involving important public issues which implicate significant policy considerations, it is appropriate that the trial judge consider possible harm to other interested parties and the public interest in deciding whether to issue the preliminary injunction.” Punnett,
The Winter factors counsel against issuing a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor have they demonstrated irreparable harm, that the balance of harms tips in their favor or that the public interest favors an injunction.
C.
Plaintiffs also argue that Section 2687 violates the Republican Party’s freedom of association and both the Party and the registered-elector Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that poll watching “constitutes free association with candidates, political parties, and political bodies” since poll watchers are representatives of their parties. (Compl. ¶¶ 79-80.) Plaintiffs further assert that poll watchers engage in core political speech and, in their capacity as representatives selected by the parties, exercise the Party’s freedom of speech as well. More specifically, Plaintiffs contend that a “poll watcher (or an individual who would serve as a poll watcher but for the residency requirement), engages in protected speech by, inter alia, reporting incidents of potential violations of the Election Code (or other regulations or criminal statutes) during the conduct of an election.” (Pis.’ Mot., at 14.) Plaintiffs conclude that by limiting poll watchers to the county in which they are qualified electors, Section 2687(b) “totally restricts this form of political speech and free association for both poll watchers and the political parties they represent,” and therefore should be subject to strict scrutiny, under which it fails to for lack of a compelling government interest.” (Compl. ¶¶ 80-81.) The Court now assesses Plaintiffs’ ability to satisfy the four prerequisites to injunctive relief with respect to these First Amendment claims.
i.
The First Amendment instructs “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” U.S. Const, amend. I. The Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Bigelow v. Virginia,
Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for the proposition that “poll watching” is a fundamental right under the First Amendment, and the Court has found no support
State law, not the Federal Constitution, grants individuals the ability to serve as poll watchers and parties and candidates the authority to select those individuals. See 25 P.S. § 2687(a); see also Turner,
At the hearing, Plaintiffs also acknowledged that they could not cite any case law to support their position that speech engaged in while poll watching constitutes core political speech, and admitted that this was “not [their] strongest argument.” (Hr’g Tr., at 187:18-20, 189:22-23.) They are correct in this regard. Political speech is “central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
Viewed through this lens, Plaintiffs’ assertion that statements made in one’s capacity as a poll watcher constitute core political speech is meritless. First of all, the content of a poll watcher’s statements cannot be characterized as political speech. When a poll watcher reports incidents of potential violations of the Election Code during the conduct of an election, .he neither facilitates public discussion of a political issue nor advocates for a particular candidate, issue or viewpoint. Rather, as the Secretary’s counsel noted at the hearing, poll watchers are not allowed “to advocate or talk political speech to the voters as they’re coming in” or “wear garb.” (Hr’g Tr., at 208:11-15.) Plaintiffs claimed at the hearing that the speech engaged in by poll watchers is comparable to the speech engaged in by private citizens who circulate nominating petitions to garner support for a candidate and obtain the requisite number of signatures to place the candidate on the ballot. (Hr’g Tr., at 190:1-24.) Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s requirement that poll watchers be qualified electors in the county in which they serve is “very analogous,” (id. at 190:3), to the its prior requirement, struck down as unconstitutional in Morrill v. Weaver,
The Morrill court, analyzing that requirement under strict scrutiny, invalidated it because circulating petitions constituted core political speech under Supreme Court precedent. Id. (citing Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc.,
When a poll watcher reports incidents of violations, he is performing a public function delegated by the state. See Tiryak, 412 F.Supp. at 824. “No activity is more indelibly a public function that the holding of a political election.” Id. “While the Constitution protects private rights of association and advocacy with regard to the election of public officials, [Supreme Court] cases make it clear that the conduct of the elections themselves is an [exclusively public function.” Flagg Bros., Inc. v.
Regardless of the poll watcher’s motivations for serving—either his private interests or those of his party—he is only empowered to do so because of the Election Code, and when he reports possible violations of that law, he is performing a state function. See id. The Commonwealth’s restriction on the county in which poll watchers are able to make such statements does not implicate their private rights of association or advocacy.
ii.
Likewise, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The Third Circuit has clarified that “the assertion of First Amendment rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury, thus entitling a plaintiff to a preliminary injunction if he shows a likelihood of success on the merits.” Hohe v. Casey,
iii.-iv.
The remaining two factors—the balance of equities and the public interest—likewise weigh against the granting of the preliminary injunction for the same reasons discussed above, supra subsections III.B.iii-iv.
D.
Plaintiffs also contend that Section 2687(b)’s residency requirement violates the Pennsylvania Constitution for the same reasons it violates the Federal Constitution. (Id. ¶ 85.) The Secretary argues that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution are baired by the Eleventh Amendment under the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
The Court need not address these arguments in any greater detail. Assuming, arguendo, that Secretary Cortés, as the Commonwealth’s Chief Election Official, has sufficient connection with the enforcement of Section 2687(b) to permit Plaintiffs’ claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution to proceed, Plaintiffs’ state claims do not entail any new arguments and do not alter the federal constitutional analysis in any way. As Plaintiffs acknowledge in their motion, Pennsylvania’s equal protection and due process provisions are coextensive with the corresponding provisions of the United States Constitution. See Com., Dep’t of Transp. v. Taylor,
Notes
. "Political body” and "political party” are separately defined. See 25 P.S. § 2831. Both entities nominate candidates; the distinction between "parties” and "bodies” is the number of votes their candidates received in prior general or municipal elections. If the candidates earned more than two percent of the votes, the entity is a "party”; if less, it is a "political body.” id.; see also Com. ex rel. MacElree v. Legree,
. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Jonathan Marks, Commissioner of the Commonwealth’s Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, testified that in his experience, the “primary function” of poll watchers is “to check off a list of names of.. .voters that they expect will vote for their party of their candidate,” and also noted that "if.. .it gets late in the afternoon and certain voters haven’t show up, they may make calls [to targeted voters] or contact somebody to make calls-on their behalf.” (Hr’g Tr., at 39:1-9); see also Cotz v. Mastroeni,
. While Plaintiffs initially requested both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order ("TRO”) (ECF No. 2), the Court’s scheduling of a hearing on October 28 obviated the need for a TRO.
. “In determining whether a law is facially invalid, [courts] must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’ cases.” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party,
Here, Plaintiffs’ facial challenge to 2867(b)’s constitutionality depends, in part, on a vote dilution theory that is far more speculative than the assertion aboút voter confusion made in Washington State Grange. Because there is no support in the record for Plaintiffs' theory, it is not an appropriate basis for a facial challenge.
. Election regulations subject to strict scrutiny are upheld only if they are "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Washington State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party,
. Even if the Plaintiffs could show that Section 2687(b) somehow burdened their fundamental right to vote, the Secretary would need only demonstrate that the Commonwealth’s "important regulatory interest” is "sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” in order for Section 2687(b) to survive an equal protection challenge. Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party,
. The State manages the statewide voter registry through the "SURE” system. "SURE” is an acronym for "Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors.” 25 P.S. § 1222(a). The SURE system contains a database of all registered electors in the Commonwealth and is maintained electronically by the Commonwealth; id. § 1222(a)—(b), the system allows counties and the Commonwealth to search for voter registration information and to identify duplicate information, id. § 1222(c).
. The Court arrived at this number by multiplying the 1,686 election districts in Philadelphia, see (Hr’g Tr., at 178:17), by the three poll watchers the Party may appoint, see 25 P.S. § 2687(a).
. Even if the state’s restriction was deemed to implicate the poll watchers’ or Party's private associational rights under the First Amendment, the Court would perform the same analysis under Burdick and Timmons, supra subsection III.B.i, at 10-12, under which Plaintiffs were found unlikely to succeed on the merits. See Timmons,
. Even if Section 2687(b) implicated the poll watchers’ or the Party's private rights to freedom of speech, it would likely survive under the reasonableness analysis applied to content-neutral restrictions on speech in nonpublic fora. See PG Publ’g Co. v. Aichele, 705 F.3d 91, 113 (3d Cir. 2013) ("[A] polling place is a nonpublic forum, requiring the government to satisfy only a reasonableness analysis.”).