26.11.2020 Views

COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

172.

The disparate treatment of Georgia voters, in subjecting one class of

voters to greater burdens or scrutiny than another, violates Equal Protection

guarantees because “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or

dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly

prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555. Rice

v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v.

Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo.

Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, 41, 56 P.3d

524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).

173.

Defendants are not the legislature, and their unilateral decision to

create and implement a cure procedure for some but not all absentee and

mail-in voters in this State violates the Due Process Clause of the United

States Constitution. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will

suffer serious and irreparable harm unless the injunctive relief requested

herein is granted.

82

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!