The specific allegation in this case where stopping the poll watchers from being able to verify ballots (proved by facts), and uneven curing (this part is factually true as well) that violated equal protection and curing instructions that violate state law (also factually true).
Here's a quote from the judge on the case showing the fake news narrative, "This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not. " https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
The lower court ruing was for lack of standing and that the different treatment not being enough to prove an equal protection violations. The appeal was on the narrow grounds listed above that SPtoine quoted out of context and thus lied about the case.
Additionally "voter fraud" in court mean exactly voter fraud and not unfairness. Switching definitions in middle of an argument that requires the rests on the definitions being consistently used is a fallacy called equivocation.
Here's a blatant example of equivocation to show the flaw in reasoning clearly.
A feather is light [not heavy].
What is light [bright] cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Caption this Meme
