The issue of mootness

Wouldn't it be nice if courts would apply this kind of logic to election fraud?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fe3a907e6fcce0d7d64a7d7/t/604fd43e0ffb29276a56ea9a/1615844416282/Temporary+Restraining+Order+Ruling+March+15.PDF

the State Defendants more specifically argue that "the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs seek should be denied because their schools will be able to reopen on Wednesday." (State Defendants' Supplemental Opposition, p. 5, 11. 7-8.) 

From this, the State Defendants conclude that emergency relief is not warranted. The issue of mootness, however, already has been rejected by courts faced with challenges to orders promulgated purportedly to attempt to stem the spread of COVID-19.

As courts have explained, applications to enjoin orders are not rendered moot where the plaintiffs remain subject to the real possibility that evolving circumstances may lead to the resurrection/imposition of the same restrictive orders in the future. (See County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health v. Sup. Ct. (2021) 2021 DJDAR 1969, 1971 citing Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo (2020) 592 U.S._,_ [141 S.Ct. 63, 68,208 L.Ed.2d 206, 210].) 

In this case, the State Defendants do not confirm or otherwise guarantee that once the County moves into the Red Tier, students may be free from concerns about future distance learning mandates. This case presents the classic example of a "substantial and continuing public interest" that is capable of repetition yet could evade review, a conclusion supported by the State Defendants' acknowledgment that the existing framework is "continually adjusted to account for evolving scientific understanding and changing conditions ... "