The problem is no court's going to order some big election disrupting inspection absent significant, specific evidence of a widespread problem.
The campaigns and parties have had a year or more to examine and sometimes litigate the election process in each state. Every state allows observers from both sides, and when there's a problem like in Philly where the observation station was too far away they can go to court and get it changed.
Given this the burden on either campaign to have the courts intervene is pretty high.
Thanks. I and agree, the threshold for disputing an election should, rightfully, be high. We don't want every election result being disrupted simply because the declared loser can afford an attorney. Even small town candidates probably already have more than one that they could afford and use to file frivolous complaints.
However, in some of these cases, what we ALREADY know is extremely suspicious, if not damning. Not only were appointed ballot watchers denied access, a lot of them were even denied access AFTER courts had ordered they be allowed to return, at least for some time. Not to mention the mixing of ballots that had been ordered by the US Supreme Court to remain separate.
So these aren't just some two-bit complaints put together by a sore loser. These are US court rulings that were being ignored. For what reason is the question, but any honest judge would at least strongly consider discovery to find out more.