To be clear, most election fraud cases have not been dismissed for lack of standing. This MAGA line has been promulgated since the Texas case was dismissed for lack of standing, despite most of the people who talk about it not really understanding what standing doctrine is... but that's a lesson for another day I guess. Rather, most have dismissed for failure to state a claim, which is very different than standing. This quite literally means that, having construed all evidence, allegations, and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
If actionable unequal treatment was "easily proven without discovery," they wouldn't be getting dismissed for failing to state claims. Again, standing is really not an issue in most of the lawsuits thus far. Additionally, the standard for dismissal requires construing everything in the plaintiff's favor, the court is bound to not obfuscate the plaintiff's facts.
To be clear, most election fraud cases have not been dismissed for lack of standing. This MAGA line has been promulgated since the Texas case was dismissed for lack of standing, despite most of the people who talk about it not really understanding what standing doctrine is... but that's a lesson for another day I guess. Rather, most have dismissed for failure to state a claim, which is very different than standing. This quite literally means that, having construed all evidence, allegations, and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
If actionable unequal treatment was "easily proven without discovery," they wouldn't be getting dismissed for failing to state claims. Again, standing is really not an issue in most of the lawsuits thus far. Additionally, the standard for dismissal requires construing everything in the plaintiff's favor, the court is bound to not obfuscate the plaintiff's facts.