If the law she cites gives her standing to file a lawsuit, then how can it be that the judiciary lacks jurisdiction? If the law allows lawsuits it must allow the judiciary to have jurisdiction. Is this judge claiming that the law is unconstitutional because it doesn’t specifically exempt Presidential eligibility lawsuits?
And if that is what he is claiming, then why should Jordan have to pay $13,000 for the state’s passage of an unconstitutional law?
And BTW, how can he rule on a law’s constitutionality if that is not being challenged?
And it's absurd to say that the court must have had jurisdiction in order to take the case in which it says it doesn't have jurisdiction. Courts throw out cases for a lack of jurisdiction all the time.
There are lots of times a plaintiff has standing but the court lacks jurisdiction. If you sue your husband for a divorce in traffic court, you have standing but the court lacks jurisdiction because traffic courts can't grant divorces. If Microsoft sues Apple for patent infringement in San Francisco Superior Court, the plaintiff has standing but the court lacks jurisdiction because only federal courts can hear patent cases. If you sue me in small claims court for stealing a million dollars from you, you have standing but the court lacks jurisdiction because small claims court can't hear million dollar cases.
The decision that was posted dismissed her case but didn't sanction her. The sanctions order, I understand, was by the Washington Supreme Court based on her (allegedly) frivolous appeal from the dismissal order. I would have to see that order to say what she was sanctioned for.