Page:Wood v. Raffensperger (1 20-cv-04651-SDG) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/23

 one million absentee ballots called into question. Beyond merely causing confusion, Wood’s requested relief could disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate and erode the public’s confidence in the electoral process. See ''Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Interference with impending elections is extraordinary, and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented.”) (citation omitted); Arkansas United v. Thurston'', No. 5:20-cv-5193, 2020 WL 6472651, at *5 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 3, 2020) (“[T]he equities do not favor intervention where the election is already in progress and the requested relief would change the rules of the game mid-play.”).

Thus, Wood is not entitled to injunctive relief on Counts I and II for the additional reason that these claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
 * c. The Merits of the Request for Injunctive Relief

Even assuming Wood possessed standing, and assuming Counts I and II are not barred by laches, the Court nonetheless finds Wood would not be entitled to the relief he seeks. The Court addresses each required element for a temporary restraining order in turn.