In Wood v. Raffensperger, Wood alleged that the Georgia 2020 general election was invalid due to the defendants conducting their election-related roles in an unconstitutional manner.
Like most lawsuits seeking to overturn the 2020 general election, the lawsuit failed for lack of standing due to the plaintiff having a generalized, rather than particular, grievance. From the motion denying the request for a temporary injunction:
Starting with his claim asserted under the Elections and Electors Clause, Wood lacks standing as a matter of law. The law is clear: A generalized grievance regarding a state government’s failure to properly follow the Elections Clause of the Constitution does not confer standing on a private citizen.
Who, if anybody, would have had a particularized grievance here? One of the candidates, perhaps? Or, since the quote calls out "private citizens", some member of the government?
This is related to this question, but isn't a duplicate: I'm not asking about generalized grievances in general, but the specific allegations in Wood v. Raffensperger.