Perhaps an INGO lawyer will weigh in, but I don't think a plaintiff has standing if not a resident of a state in which the rule changes were made or existing rules were violated, unless and until he can show that such changes resulted in some demonstrable harm - which could only be after the vote was counted and certified. Democrats have recognized and deliberately exploited the fact that there is insufficient time between Election Day and Inauguration Day to take any meaningful legal action
Whether would have been the Trump Campaign or the state GOP, they certainly could have, but did not.
That election laws, such as those purporting to guarantee access to observers from all parties, have no penalties or remedies enshrined in their text allows them to be violated with impunity and leads to endless arguing about what should be done rather than anything actually being done. It is a recipe to get to box four sooner or later, even jamil claims to have limits, although he has detailed nothing about what comes next when, in extremis, even his presumably squishy lines are crossed
Are you talking about the 20 foot/6 foot and 60 observers rule? Again, I think you're taking Trump "literally" when it's literally not true.
Federal judge dismisses Trump’s attempt to stop vote counting in Philadelphia
The tallying process has gradually eroded the advantage Trump held over Democratic challenger Joe Biden based on in-person votes.
whyy.org
Nope, I took Trump's allegations seriously, but when I looked for the facts, he was either outright lying or exaggerating hugely. In this case it was how many and how close, not whether or not observers were allowed... they were.He just reads like JamilAnon - stay home, don't worry, things will sort themselves out, it will be alright