It wasn't one judge who denied it all and set the lack of standing at all. While several high-profile cases (notably Texas v. Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court) were indeed dismissed for lack of standing, many other lawsuits were heard on their technical and evidentiary merits.
While "standing" is a common legal hurdle, it was not the sole reason for the failure of these cases. Many judges, even ones who had recently been appointed by Trump explicitly stated in their rulings that even if the plaintiffs had standing, the evidence presented failed to prove the claims of widespread fraud.
Out of more than 60 lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies, approximately 30 cases reached a stage where a judge considered the merits of the arguments or the evidence provided.
Evidence was examined in Ward v. Jackson (Arizona), the court allowed a forensic examination of a random sampling of ballots. The judge ultimately ruled that the evidence showed only "statistically negligible" errors and no fraud.
The 64 dismissals were issued by judges across the political spectrum, including those appointed by Donald Trump himself. For example, in Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann (a registered Republican and Federalist Society member) dismissed a case citing a lack of "factual foundation" and "speculative accusations." Of the 30 that were put in front of judges, 22 of the judges were appointed either by Trump, Reagan, or Bush.
It wasn't one judge who denied it all and set the lack of standing at all. While several high-profile cases (notably Texas v. Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court) were indeed dismissed for lack of standing, many other lawsuits were heard on their technical and evidentiary merits.
While "standing" is a common legal hurdle, it was not the sole reason for the failure of these cases. Many judges, even ones who had recently been appointed by Trump explicitly stated in their rulings that even if the plaintiffs had standing, the evidence presented failed to prove the claims of widespread fraud.
Out of more than 60 lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies, approximately 30 cases reached a stage where a judge considered the merits of the arguments or the evidence provided.
Evidence was examined in Ward v. Jackson (Arizona), the court allowed a forensic examination of a random sampling of ballots. The judge ultimately ruled that the evidence showed only "statistically negligible" errors and no fraud.
The 64 dismissals were issued by judges across the political spectrum, including those appointed by Donald Trump himself. For example, in Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann (a registered Republican and Federalist Society member) dismissed a case citing a lack of "factual foundation" and "speculative accusations." Of the 30 that were put in front of judges, 22 of the judges were appointed either by Trump, Reagan, or Bush.