MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ...

I. THE BALANCE OF HARMS TIPS OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OFPLAINTIFFS – INDEED, PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLEHARM ABSENT RELIEF WHILE DEFENDANT FACES NO HARDSHIP.Rank and file party members suffer devastating First Amendment harm everyelection year when they are denied the ability to participate in their party’s nominatingprocess for multi-town and statewide offices. Absent intervention now by the Court, thiselection year will be no different. Bona fide candidates will decline to run for office inmany multi-town districts because the burden of primary ballot access is too steep. See,e.g., Campbell Decl. at 21; Byrnes Decl. at 11. Others may try to face downincumbents only to find it nearly impossible. See Caplan Decl. at 6-7; Nielsen Decl. at 7. Voters will again be left with no role in the nomination process and no chance torally around a candidate they support.The harm that will be suffered by the candidates and their supporters – and votersacross the state – without the Court’s immediate intervention is quintessentially“irreparable harm.” No monetary damages, no retroactive relief, no settlement will makeany difference if these rules are not changed well before the September primary and evenbefore the party nominating conventions. It is no surprise then that infringement on theplaintiffs’ right to vote in a primary election – including at the nominating or petitioningphase – has long been held to give rise to irreparable harm of the sort necessitatinginjunctive relief. See Gray v. Saunders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) (upholding grant ofinjunctive relief to prevent vote dilution in primary election); see also Rockefeller v.Powers, 917 F. Supp. 155, 166 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) aff’d, 78 F.3d 44 (2d.Cir 1996).In contrast to the very real harm that will be suffered by plaintiffs if Campbell andByrnes are not allowed to submit petitions to secure primary ballot status, the State will22