RCV already exists in certain states which have their electors better represent the overall vote and not the first-past-the-post issue. That's realistically been the primary problem of the EC - fptp.
If you say the clerks violated the law, what relief are you seeking? Oh, throwing out close to 200k votes by that suit. That is a relief that you have just been denied.
Clerks followed the guidelines. One specific reading of the legislation argues that these guidelines contravene the legislation. If your relief was for future elections to not have this discrepancy, of even just for the approval to seek a comprehensive audit of ballots that were specifically violated in this manner in order to identify and potentially disqualify those specific votes, it is possible that you could see that happen. Similarly, you could try to make this exact same argument again - except that you want the WEC guidelines to better reflect the legislation, as its own item after the election to prevent such a thing from happening again.
But the instant it isn't getting glorious god-emperor in charge, it's going to be discarded and forgotten about, as free to occur in elections to come as it has in elections gone by, because it isn't following that exact reading of the law that you care about. As you're specifically arguing that people who voted in full compliance with the law should have their vote discarded if a clerk added two letters to it, yeah, you're searching for straws. All the suit alleged was functionally that state and zips (implicit information) was added, not that someone filled in a street address wholesale.
If "observers were allowed to observe," you would have relied on them to take issue with a clerk adding in two letters or a zip code for those ballots to have been mailed back for curing. You aren't even alleging that these are fraudulent ballots - but rather that a specific reading of a law was not undertaken by some clerks which rendered them moot. Unfortunately, you're not seated on the proper court to have thrown your reading in the mix, so now you're pouting.
Both of them alleged damages through which they argued their case, not on-face that the precedent itself was unconstitutional. They susbtantiated those claims of damages, too, even.
