Having had time to look at the lawsuit filed by three of the candidates for the TX16 Democratic primary over the weekend and talking to some legal minds I have figured out that it's a nothing burger.
Here are the two obstacles the lawsuit faces:
1. Those suing are doing so "pro se," which is the Latin word for "a judge is going to throw this shit out of court quickly because you don't have an actual attorney representing you." Judge Perez did the right thing and recused herself (and I'm sure that pissed Vero and Susie off to Nth degree). From what I understand, the new judge isn't mired in El Paso politics and doesn't give two shits about local Democrats having an internal fight. If the plaintiffs don't have a lawyer and can't follow basic legal procedures, he's likely not going to waste his time with it.
2. Proving that some shenanigans went on is the least of their worries. Pointing out a few anomalies won't make the election null and void. It's likely they could point to some dead people voting and in Norma's case the voter file not correctly listing where voters actually voted. However, they'd have to prove there were so many of these anomalies that it would have affected whether a run-off would have been triggered. We're talking thousands upon thousands of votes here. And you'd have to prove that all the anomalies benefitted Vero and not any other candidate. Let's look at that...
Well, first - you have to realize that this civil suit would have to somehow spur a criminal investigation. I'm not sure the judge in this suit can require/launch the type of investigation I'll describe below. So this all may be moot.
The first thing the investigation would have to do is establish where the discrepancies are. If Norma's issue of her having voted at one place and being listed at another is the problem here, then you have a good starting point. A person would have to contact each voter from each polling place and ask them where they voted. (If Norma and her team did this on their own they'd have to get sworn affidavits from each person - if my legal advisers are correct.)
Once that investigator has contacted each one of those voters, they have to count up how many of them were listed as voting at a polling place different than what the record shows. If that number is big enough to have made a difference in the election they might have the necessary "evidence" that something went wrong. HOWEVER, it is not likely they'd find reason to overturn the election given that data. You can not assume all the anomalies voted against Vero. Even if you asked them who they voted for, it doesn't matter because you'd have to prove their votes were changed and that is very hard to do.
Bottom line - they could likely prove something weird happen, but not that the election was stolen. In no way would Vero be personally responsible for those anomalies. You'd have to have someone admit to the scam and then point a finger at the ringleader for this to go anywhere. I highly doubt Vero was involved in any kind of election fraud. Like her or not, she's not that type of person.