scheme, Georgia is noncompliant with § 1973ff-l(a)(8)(A)’s forty-five day absentee ballot transmittal requirement as it applies to runoff elections: the candidates for a primary runoff election will be de , 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (recognizing the right of voters “to cast their votes effectively,” which “of course, rank[s] among our most precious freedoms”). The harm at issue in this case is a violation of UOCAVA’s forty-five day deadline that protects the franchise of United States citizens overseas; the failure to comply with that deadline is an irreparable harm. See United States v. Alabama, 857 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1241-42 (M.D.Ala.2012); see also Marchant v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, 815 F.Supp.2d 568, 578 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (citing Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323, 326 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>)). b. Remedies Available at Law Are Inadequate
recognizing that not all constitutional harms are synonymous with irreparable harm and that mere assertion of a first amendment right does not automatically require a finding of irreparable harm rather the movant must show a chilling effect on protected activity holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that an infringement on the right to vote necessarily causes irreparable harm holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under  101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal