Correct, I misspoke. The scenario lacks so much credibility the judges wont even ALLOW it to go to TRIAL.
Better?
Originally Posted by CJ7
No.
"Standing" means that before someone can sue successfully, they must show that they have been or will be harmed. SO FAR, nobody has managed to make a good enough case, and Obama's motions for dismissal for lack of standing have been uniformly successful. Hillary Clinton would certainly have had standing to sue, when she was running against Obama for the nomination. McCain would certainly have had standing, as the Republican candidate for President. The eventual Republican nominee will have standing. I do not know whether a Libertarian or SWP Presidential candidate would be seen to have standing: a liberal Democrat judge might well rule that the guy had no chance of being elected anyway, and so dismissal of the case came under "no harm, no foul".
Also, even if you can persuade a judge that you have standing, there may be other problems. There was a case in Alabama recently. The judge threw it out because Alabama state law explicitly forbids the Alabama courts from examining the question of whether a nominee for office actually meets the requirements for nomination. The political parties are, essentially, on the honor system...