There is no need to prove standing. That is from the Constitution and cannot be changed by a Court of Law.
This might be a good argument to make for CHANGING the existing law - and many think that this case is a perfect demonstration of why the current law of standing should be changed. However, under CURRENT law, the US Supreme Court has held - without exception - that a person must have standing to bring a Constitutional Challenge.
As for eligibility challenges, I have long contended that the state laws regarding proof of eligibility should be changed so that a candidate is required to provide proof of US citizenship, minimum age, and minimum residency. I have also argued that the state laws "requiring" electors to vote a certain way should be challenged as an improper usurpation of the Elector College voters' constitutional right - and obligation - to cast their vote (and maintain their oath). I strongly support making changes to state law on BOTH of these issues.
I have also long contended that, under CURRENT law, no court action brought by a private citizen is going to succeed -- for the reasons that the 40+ cases filed so far in state and federal court have been dismissed.
The STATE cases have been dismissed because, unfortunately, the current state laws do not require the Secretary of State (or election board) to verify eligibility and some states, like California, expressly require the Secretary to place the party's candidate on the ballot (with no room for discretion). This is why existing laws MUST be changed.
The FEDERAL cases have been dismissed due to lack of standing. Might hate the fact that that is current law, but that is the current law. Congress could change that, I believe. But until they do -- or until the Supreme Court overturns its prior cases -- that is the however unfortunate law of the land.
As for my primary interest in joining FreeRepublic and staying, your assessment is
not accurate.