outside the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims. See LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d at 1028 (indicating that a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not sufficient for jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims because it does not “mandate payment of money by the government.” (citing Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 422, 445, 627 F.2d 1068 (1980))); Potter v. United States, 108 Fed.Cl. 544, 548 (2013) (finding that “this Court lacks jurisdiction over violations under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ... because they do not mandate payment of money by the government.”) (internal citations omitted) (modifications in original); Warren v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 507, 511 (2012) (<HOLDING>); Pleasant-Bey v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl.
holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating holding that neither the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment nor article i  2 of the constitution guarantee against errors in the administration of an election holding that we lack jurisdiction over unexhausted equal protection claims recognizing that the heck deferred accrual rule applies to fourteenth amendment equal protection claims holding that since the fourteenth amendment guarantee of equal protection is not money mandating accordingly the court lacks jurisdiction over these claims