Do you see significant differences between the equal protection clause as applied in the Bush v Gore case in 2000 and the Pennsylvania case ruled on today?

Today Federal Judge Matthew Brann turned down the Trump campaign’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania. This decision will probably provide a path to the Supreme Court.

The basis of the lawsuit was the Equal Protection Clause which is part of Amendment 14 to the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause (henceforth referred to as EP) gained notoriety in 2000 when it was the basis for the US Supreme Court decision to stop the Florida recount on the basis that different counties had different procedures for the recount.

The Pennsylvania case was based on very similar grounds. The case relates to curing ballots that are defective. ”(T)he state left it to counties to decide how aggressive to be in trying to contact voters to help them fix their ballots — or “cure” them, in election jargon. And some counties aren’t planning to follow the state’s instructions. Officials in Montgomery and Centre Counties, for example, won’t cancel flawed ballots because they want voters to be able to fix them. Allegheny County mails flawed ballots right back to voters, never canceling them nor marking them in the system at all.”

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit alleging unequal treatment of voters in different counties. The Judge’s decision relies partly on “standing” of the plaintiffs, and partly on the merits. You can read the decision here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7331957-Judge-Brann-Decision.html

I am not a lawyer and am appealing to lawyers for help. On the surface, I have a hard time understanding why EP does not apply here. Can you help?