None of these post-election cases have been dismissed for lack of standing in the lower courts. The pre-election cases (against McCain) were, because there was no harm incurred before that point.
The SCOTUS simply has not granted cert to any of these petitions to date, which I would interpret as a) they see no reason to interpret the term "natural born citizen" as anything other than a citizen born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship status of the parent(s); b) there has been no credible proof presented to question the State of Hawaii's Certification of Live Birth; c) SCOTUS does not agree with the argument that the various SOS's, or any other entity, are required by law to demand an original birth certificate as a requirement for certification of a candidate. IOW, the SOS's, and the Dem Party are simply performing a rubber-stamp operation, as they've done with every other election in our history. To change the rules now would be discriminatory.
Berg's case has always seemed to me the most frivolous of all -- a veritable "kitchen-sink" of unproved assertions. (It may have been pared down in the meantime, but I have followed it for a while.) In addition, he didn't follow the preferred route to the SCOTUS -- bypassing the lower state court to file at the state Supreme Court level -- which has dragged the case out for months, probably intentionally.
<”there has been no credible proof presented to question the State of Hawaii’s Certification of Live Birth”;>
Exactly! Which is why this will never end up going anywhere. You show the proof or evidence that something was done, then show harm.
Berg has tried to suggest there was harm without evidence something being done.