> I’m tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing or “Laches”)

The “laches” dismissals were not of fraud claims (frankly, neither were the rest, as the campaign either did not include or voluntarily withdrew fraud claims fairly consistently: fraud is something they liked talking about in forums that couldn’t adjudicate claims, but avoided in ones that could; but this is more stark with the laches dismissals.) Every single laches dismissal was of a claim not of fraud, but of changes to election procedures by state executive or local officials that were alleged to be not properly authorized by the state legislature, and the laches dismissals were because the changes at issue were well-known with plenty of opportunity to file challenges before the election when the remedy, were the procedures improper, could have included reversion of procedures, but the claims were, without good cause, delayed until after the election, preventing any remedy which would not have unreasonably adversely impacted the rights of third parties, specifically, the voters who voted in the election held with the challenged procedures.