Here is the order in Hollander v. McCain dismissing a similar suit against McCain. In this order the court set out the threshold a plaintiff would need to meet to have standing. Read the order if you want to know why Mr. Berg doesn't have standing.
Not exactly. Berg can initiate civil lawsuits on the same complaint in the courts of every state where the thresholds for burden of proof most definitely are different.
Appreciate your post of that decision in New Hampshire. Seems as if that sets a bad precedent as far as Berg’s standing is concerned, and that Berg’s case has a good chance of being dismissed on lack of standing without the Court addressing the merits of his constitutional ineligiblility arguments. This doesn’t surprise me. I mentioned this possibility on another thread immediately after hearing of Berg’s suit.