Not. One. Word. Of. What. You. Just. Posted. Is. Remotely. On. Point.
You presented that list as comprehensive. You presented their total numbers as fact. I quite literally pick one case and looked at the decision.
Your "list" presented the fiction that there was NO evidence presented in THAT case. That it was decided as a Non-Merit case. Period. End of story. The ruling presents the exact opposite reality. Your list-makers lied about THAT case. Period. End of story. It's like bumping a haystack and three needles pop out. The logical assumption would be that the haystack is full of needles. Explain how they got THAT case 100% wrong. Respond on point this time.
As for your claim that the case doesn't involve allegations of fraud...Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants ignored limits on the availability of mail-in balloting, created ballot dropboxes, did not provide adequate access to poll observers, "eliminated state laws requiring that voters provide information on the mail-in ballot envelope," and permitted election workers to alter ballots. Plaintiff claims that the alleged conduct violates both the Elections and Electors Clauses..
That certainly quacks like a fraud duck.