I think the equal protection clause argument is plausible.
jbborwick
72

If lawyers challenge this election in court, then they will be required to analyze and explain the facts based on the outcome of this election. That’s how lawyers always make arguments, and courts decide cases. Courts do not decide hypothetical / theoretical / possible future problems. They decide facts based on specific disputes being litigated. That’s why Bush v. Gore was about the specific facts in that election.