Page:Wood v. Raffensperger (1 20-cv-04651-SDG) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/25

 dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote, also referred to [as] vote dilution…. Second, the Court has found that the Equal Protection Clause is violated where the state, having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, through later arbitrary and disparate treatment, values one person’s vote over that of another. Moore, 2020 WL 6063332, at *12 (citing Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104–05 (2000); Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 554). A rationalerational [sic] basis standard of review applies if the plaintiff alleges “that a state treated him or her differently than similarly situated voters, without a corresponding burden on the fundamental right to vote.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 429 (citing McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 807–09 (1969)). If a fundamental right is implicated, the claim is governed by the flexible Anderson/Burdick balancing test. Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433–35; Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983).

Wood’s equal protection claim does not fit within this framework. Wood does not articulate a cognizable harm that invokes the Equal Protection Clause.