[SERKIT]

:::::The rationale would essentially be that one should have complained before the election; not wait until the election results were known to seek to have the result voided.:::::

This situation could be called the "Schrödinger's-cat-not-yet-ripe-but-then-instantly-laches conundrum".

Some courts have ruled that a complaint prior to the election could not demonstrate harm (not ripe so don't even bother to present evidence) but some courts say even though you wait to see if there is harm as a result of the election, you are too late (so don't even bother to present evidence) then they cry "laches" and loose the dogs of judicial cowardice.

[TrueFact]

Also know as damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Not swearing. That’s a legal term.

[ConjunctionJunction]

Attorney Robert Barnes described it this way (paraphrased):

Can’t sue before the election; can’t sue during election; can’t sue after election.

Not ripe in spring, no standing by summer, laches by fall, and moot by winter.

This is the Pandora’s Box of Pontius Pilate pretexts courts unleashed w/ their refusal to do their jobs.

**********************************************

But I think I like your description even better!