Third Circuit REJECTS Republican lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania ballot receipt deadline.

[Klaralven]

12. Decided on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue

We do not decide today whether the Deadline Extension
or the Presumption of Timeliness are proper exercises of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s lawmaking authority,
delegated by the U.S. Constitution, to regulate federal
elections. Nor do we evaluate the policy wisdom of those two
features of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling. We hold
only that when voters cast their ballots under a state’s facially
lawful election rule and in accordance with instructions from
the state’s election officials, private citizens lack Article III
standing to enjoin the counting of those ballots on the grounds
that the source of the rule was the wrong state organ or that
doing so dilutes their votes or constitutes differential treatment
of voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Further,
and independent of our holding on standing, we hold that the
District Court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for
injunctive relief out of concern for the settled expectations of
voters and election officials. We will affirm the District
Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO or
preliminary injunction.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/10/Third-Circuit-Opinion.pdf