Since even before the 2020 Presidential Election and for more than two-and-a-half years following it, a myriad of cases claiming some sort of election anomaly have been filed with courts across the country at every level from county to state, to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The vast majority of those cases ended with “dismissed,” and more often than not for lack of “standing.” 

What exactly is “standing”?  According to USlegal.com, “Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you ‘lack standing’ to bring the suit and dismiss your case.

“There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:

“Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.

“Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.

“Redressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.

“Other requirements are also imposed:

“A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court.

“A plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers.”

Wow!  We should have spent more time examining the fine print. Without “standing” no evidence is examined or reviewed by the court. The interests of “We the People” – honest, fair elections, the voice of the people – have not been represented in any of these lawsuits, let alone addressed by the courts.  Instead, judges have turned a blind eye to evidence and quickly dismissed these cases for lack of standing, sometimes rightly, but in some cases in defiance of clear standing. The fact is, judges and courts are uncomfortable setting precedent, taking on types of cases that have never been tried before. As a result, many have played the “standing” card in an act of cowardice, and no one questions a dismissal. This is injustice for all. 

Those who continue to claim “there is no evidence” are patently wrong. There are mountains of evidence, but so far courts have ducked their sacred duty to hear it.

Do we as citizens have standing in challenges regarding the 2020 election? Two-and-a-half years later, we are suffering real, not abstract injuries as a result of this judicial expediency – high inflation, a continuing border crisis, rampant crime and more.  

Can the injury reasonably be connected to defendant’s conduct? Yes, all across the country election officials, and lawmakers alike have allowed lax laws, regulations, and procedures to create massive opportunities for election manipulation.  

What about redressability? True, the election was certified. To redress that by overturning an election would be a huge risk on the part of the court. It would burst the illusion that our elections were fair and secure.  It would mean declaring we are currently being governed by wrongfully installed individuals at all levels of government. That would indeed inject massive chaos into the society. But if a preponderance of evidence were to be exposed, the redress requested could stop short of the above scenario, and instead be limited to requiring changes to prevent such an injustice from happening in future elections.   

The judicial branch has indeed failed the American people at every level.  It’s time for Lady Justice to remove the blindfold from her eyes, examine the facts and emerging evidence in the bright light of day.   

pdf of article