You have to read the entire section! You are quoting the question that he is setting up, but you are portraying it as the answer. Try reading your part and then the following paragraphs...which contain the Judge's opinion about the question that he set up.
It was the answer. The judge ruled that Keyes had no standing to sue.
Try reading your part and then the following paragraphs...which contain the Judge's opinion about the question that he set up.
I did. And in the following paragraphs Judge Carter states that candidate are the only ones who potentially satisfy the injury in fact requirement. There is nothing new in that, other cases have made the same finding. But he is also clear, in his comments prior to and after dismissing Keyes, that the definition of which candidates can establish standing is not all encompassing. He indicates that any write-in candidate does not. Obviously Keyes did not, due to the sheer improbability of his winning. Judge Carter basically leaves the question of which candidates qualify for standing undefined and turns to the question of whether the Court can provide redress for whatever candidate can show injury in fact. And it that Judge Carter found that the court could not.