Not until the election is finished, that is when “harm (loss of election by plaintiff) caused by a defendant empowers standing”.
Then, once past the election, it is doubtful, considering the magnitude of the case (POTUS) that any court would wish to be the one to wreck what has worked more or less smoothly for 230+ years. Courts don’t like to get involved in politics.
Law is not necessarily common logic.
" The standing inquiry focuses on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed, see, e.g., Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180, and a party facing prospective injury has standing where the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct, see, e.g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102. Davis faced the requisite injury from §319(a) when he filed suit: He had already declared his candidacy and his intent to spend more than $350,000 of personal funds in the general election campaign whose onset was rapidly approaching. Section 319(a) would shortly burden his personal expenditure by allowing his opponent to receive contributions on more favorable terms, and there was no indication that his opponent would forgo that opportunity. Pp. 6-8. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/724.html#sthash.hJvM6HWy.dpuf."
It is also a fact that a number of opinions have indicated that standing can be established under state laws that regulate ballot access if the challenged party is empowered by those laws to contest that access and chooses to do so