She already could not meet the evidentiary standard of presenting evidence for a prima facie case of election fraud; now she has to deal with a whole 'nother quantum level of difficulty.
Under the US Constitution, Pennsylvania is given sole authority for conducting its elections. In order to prevail in Federal Court, she would need to establish that something in PA's election or recount laws violates a part of the US Constitution. That she will never be able to do.
In effect, she has gone from needing to meet an entirely practical, and relatively low, evidentiary standard, to proving a due process violation. She could not establish one as a matter of plain fact, which would have been a prerequisite to meeting the other as a matter of law.
don’t be so confident she can’t find a federal judge who will see some kind of unconstitutionality in Pennsylvanians election laws. If the federal courts could find the states marriage laws unconstitutional, there’s nothing that is immune from their agenda-pushing meddling and disapproval
Some precincts met the criteria for voter initiated recounts and are recounting (mainly in the Philly area). Is she going after the equal protection aspect? Some precincts recounting and others not?
But even in that case, how does she have any standing? The recount doesn’t affect her in any way as there’s no way she could win.