Page:Wood v. Raffensperger (1 20-cv-04651-SDG) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/24

 ::i. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
 * 1. Equal Protection (Count I)

Wood argues the execution and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement burdens his right to vote in contravention of the Equal Protection Clause because the agreement sets forth additional voting safeguards not found in the Georgia Election Code. States retain the power to regulate their own elections. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (citing U.S. Const. Art. I, § 4, cl. 1). The Supreme Court has held that: "Common sense, as well as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government must play an active role in structuring elections; as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes."

Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433 (citing Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974)).

Inevitably, most election laws will “impose some burden upon individual voters.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433. But the Equal Protection Clause only becomes applicable if “a state either classifies voters in disparate ways… or places restrictions on the right to vote.” ''Obama for Am. v. Husted'', 697 F.3d 423, 428 (6th Cir. 2012). As recently summarized by one federal district court: The Supreme Court has identified two theories of voting harms prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Court has identified a harm caused by debasement or