State legislatures make the rules. If you don't like what the rules say, change them. Oh wait, thats what a bunch of Judges did prior to the election. My bad.
"IF" (and I'm well aware that none has been proven yet) there is fraud that is yet uncovered, one person one vote is already out the window. A LOT of really hinky shit happened in this election. Is it fraud? I guess it depends on how you - and the law - define fraud.
Ultimately, and in a general sense, in a nation that is governed by the consent of the people, "fraud" ought to be a measure of actions that work to deliberately undermine the desires of the governed (in my opinion of course). So while things like extending the window for voting, increasing the places for voting, and making it easier to vote may in some instances diverge from the text of a statute, votes received under those conditions *still reflect the will of the people* and perhaps more (most?) importantly, so long as those accommodations are available to *everyone equally* in order to facilitate the ability to have input, I would have a very very hard time invalidating or considering that fraudulent. If, on the other hand, an individuals ability to have their voice registered is infringed - say by having their ballot changed, or having influence exerted on their choice - I'm all on board with considering that to be fraud.
It also goes to the larger question of democracy, the consent of the governed, and the interaction between the will of the majority of the people and the ability of the minority to retain baseline rights in the face of a larger state that may disagree with them. In this case, in dozens upon dozens of attempts, no one has been able to show that this second kind of fraud - the one where someone's voice is altered or silenced - has occurred in any way that would impact the outcome of the election.
