“A senior source involved with…Trump’s 2024 effort… and another person working with the Heritage-based Project 2025 (the conservative policy agenda project) tell Rolling Stone that the point of these multi-pronged legal attack plans and potential blitz of challenges isn’t necessarily to win…”
It’s a lot more work to bring a challenge like this than to defend against one, especially when all you have is frivolous arguments, up against unambiguous statutes and well-settled case law.
Also, speaking as an attorney, I would be appalled if a client ever got quoted, even on background/not for attribution, saying the point of a ballot challenge “wasn’t necessarily to win.”