State Constitution changes are often controlled by the people, ultimately, not the legislature, which has occasionally been used in Presidential election cases to argue that such State Constitutions cannot constrain regulation of state elections because they are not under the exclusive control of the legislature. The federal courts have, IIRC, consistently and emphatically rejected this logic, though.
I'm saying the wrong doing is invalidating the electoral process.
A crime is a crime regardless of whether it effects the outcome. It is fairly straightforward to prove that you stuffed a thousand ballets if you actually did that, we just have to show evidence of what you did! It is impossible to prove that you or someone else didn't stuff ballots, because it is logically a possible that it occurred. IE proving existence is something that is possible, proving non-existence is something that is impossible.
> I'm saying the wrong doing is invalidating the electoral process.
I'm saying that there is simply no evidence of wrong doing so the courts have nothing to act on. We haven't even made it to the "should the wrong doing invalidate the electoral process" yet.
States and election officials of states run elections. They are given a lot of latitude in how they run elections, limited by state law and state constitution edits that are also controlled by state legislatures. State courts can only evaluate wrong doing based on those rules, laws, and such, if they are messed up, the courts can't fix them unilaterally.
> You can't have video of people walking in with their outside clothes, without going through the processes and then say, "You have to prove that it contaminated the room." You don't; it's enough to show the process was tainted.
That is not how law works in the USA or any country that I'm aware of. You have to prove that wrong doing occurred, not prove that wrong doing did not occur. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the defendant. Science works the same way (something is a theory if it can't be disproven, not if it can be proven that it can't be disproven).