> Not one election fraud case was rejected on merit and claims. None were heard. All were denied via process. Do you mind expanding on what you mean by "[not]

> Not one election fraud case was rejected on merit and claims. None were heard. All were denied via process. Do you mind expanding on what you mean by "[not] rejected on merit and claims", "none were heard", and "all were denied via process"? There are multiple arguments that these are incorrect: - In the US court systems, dismissal due to failure to state a claim is a decision on the merits (Federated Dep't Stores v. Moitie) - At least one court did hear claims (barring you and me using different definitions of "hear claims"), and specifically addressed them in their decisions (e.g., Law v. Whitmer included depositions and explicitly ruled on the merits) - Multiple decisions included an analysis of the claims in addition to analysis of the procedural failings (e.g., the decision in King v. Whitmer addresses 11th Amendment immunity, mootness, laches, abstention, and standing, and also goes on to describe why even if the complaint did not suffer from the previous issues the plaintiffs would not be granted their requested relief). > The higher courts rejected even the idea of hearing them for various reasons including the establishment right wanted Trump to remain in office as much as the establishment left. Can you cite anything that would support the latter half of that sentence being a reason appeals courts tended to rule the way they did? > Including the Supreme Court that ruled that potential federal election fraud or process violations in states wouldn't effect another state. This is an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court's decision. They said Texas lacked Article III standing, which is not the same thing as what you said. For example, the Supreme Court could agree that potential election fraud or process violations could affect another state, while still ruling that Texas lacks Article III standing due to failing the injury-in-fact requirement (injury is not a) concrete and particularized and b) actual or imminent). > So in this case despite Texas correctly pointing out that other states unquestionably and admittedly violated Article2 by approving election protocols without the consent of their legislatures This is almost certainly not as unquestionable as you make it sound; for example, Texas claimed that Pennsylvania's Secretary of State "unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots" without the approval of the legislature, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out that the Pennsylvania Election Code does not permit the rejection of mail-in ballots based on signature, so if anything the SoS's guidance is aligning with state law more than before.