You and I would take it to mean that, but that is not the way the DOJ goons used it in the case being argued before Judge Carter’s court! They construed it differently in order to argue Keyes had no chance of winning as shown by the results vote totals! Sadly, I do not think Carter will differentiate that specious misconstruing of the meaning.
I think Keyes will win on the standing issue, but lose on the justicability question which is tied into the statute of limitations. Like I have been preaching for weeks, the election laws in nearly every state (if not all states) require that these sort of challenges occur at the time the name is placed on the ballot before the election, not after the election. I assume that Keyes name was on the ballot in California, and therefore he would have had standing to challenge Zero’s qualifications at the time that Zero’s name was placed upon the ballot. The legal challenges, however, must be commenced within a few days of the date of the ballot certification, and certainly not after the election is held. Once the election is held, the controversy is no longer justicable; rather it becomes a policitcal question that is dealt through political means, i.e., impeachment, at least until the next election cycle.