....because it is easier to prove that election laws were violated, and done in a unconstitutional way, and that you need audits to prove fraud. And if you have a case actually accepted, you can use that as a vehicle to talk about fraud.
[edit: the Texas case that like half the states signed onto did deal with fraud]
Were they ever given the option?
sure, they could have filed an appropriate case that argued fraud.
any idea why they never did that?
....because it is easier to prove that election laws were violated, and done in a unconstitutional way, and that you need audits to prove fraud. And if you have a case actually accepted, you can use that as a vehicle to talk about fraud.
[edit: the Texas case that like half the states signed onto did deal with fraud]
You, sir, are a shitty Socrates.