The Too Late ones were ruled to be so because whatever had happened had happened and so it was too late to change anything. All the votes had been cast.

The legal term for this is "laches". It's an ancient rule that says you can't wait an unreasonable amount of time to sue over something, if that delay causes problems for other people. If you have a problem with election procedures, you're supposed to sue before the election so that they can be fixed in time for the election. If something happens during the election that you couldn't have anticipated, then you are allowed to sue after the election, as long as you're reasonably prompt about it.

The Too Early ruling was because nothing had actually happened that could be prosecuted yet. It would have been a case based on speculation rather than fact.

Again, this is a longstanding legal principle. You can sue over something that is clearly about to happen, but you can't sue to prevent something just based on a guess that it might happen. Can you imagine the chaos if people could sue each other over hypotheticals?

There is no dispute that would have been "too early" before the election and "too late" after the election. Many disputes over election procedures were heard on the merits before the election. Some disputes over fraud were heard on the merits after the election.

There was a whole variety of different cases brought by different groups in different states over different issues. The rulings are all online - you can look them up if you want. The Trump campaign actually did win some cases, though most of these were before the election, which is when most election litigation usually happens. Generally the post-election losses came down to one of the following factors:

• the plaintiffs were not directly involved in the dispute (i.e. they weren't candidates or campaigns) so they didn't have standing

• they were trying to fight state law issues in federal courts

• they were trying to relitigate stuff that had already been dealt with by previous cases

• they were trying to dispute long-established election procedures just before the election or after the election

• the small number of cases that were actually focused on fraud only offered really flimsy evidence, including a lot of hearsay ("our witness says that somebody else said that...") which is generally not admissible, and expert witnesses who clearly had no idea what they were talking about (e.g. one was an anonymous person who claimed to have worked on missile systems and argued that this made them an expert on voting machines)

Tbh I suspect that most of the people who brought these cases knew they had no chance of winning, and were just doing it for the publicity or whatever.