I get all of that.

But even if the court finds the elections in those states to have been unconstitutional, that doesn't mean: "since the election was invalid, we give it to the other guy." A unconstitutional election does not automatically mean, or even imply, that "the guy that won did so because of the violations". Not even close. This is of course the public assumption but it doesn't even enter the sphere of context in the case or ruling.

I get all of that.

But even if the court finds the elections in those states to have been unconstitutional, that doesn't mean: "since the election was invalid, we give it to the other guy." A unconstitutional election does automatically mean, or even imply, that "the guy that won did so because of the violations". Not even close. This is of course the public assumption but it doesn't even enter the sphere of context in the case or ruling.