Page:Wood v. Raffensperger (1 20-cv-04651-SDG) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/28

 violation of every law) into a potential federal equal-protection claim requiring scrutiny of the government’s ‘interest’ in failing to do more to stop the illegal activity. That is not how the Equal Protection Clause works.”).

Even if Wood’s claim were cognizable in the equal protection framework, it is not supported by the evidence at this stage. Wood’s argument is that the procedures in the Settlement Agreement regarding information and signature match so overwhelmed ballot clerks that the rate of rejection plummeted and, ergo, invalid ballots were passed over and counted. This argument is belied by the record; the percentage of absentee ballots rejected for missing or mismatched information and signature is the exact same for the 2018 election and the General Election (.15%). This is despite a substantial increase in the total number of absentee ballots submitted by voters during the General Election as compared to the 2018 election.

In sum, there is insubstantial evidence supporting Wood’s equal protection theory and he has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to Count I.