"""
Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
"""
As much as Texas tends to be on the "state's rights" side of things usually, they're really off the bead here. There is, indeed, no legal mechanism by which Texas can say "We have the wrong President because Pennsylvania didn't follow its laws." They could say "Pennsylvania violated Federal voting law via discrimination," but they aren't trying to say that. What they're trying to argue is they suffered harm because PA's laws allow too much chance of fraud, and our government doesn't work that way in general. PA could pass a law saying that everyone gets to write a name on a piece of paper and put it in a giant hat, and the first name drawn is who they'll send their electors to vote for, and there's no grounds by which Texas could contest that. State voting process (barring violations of the 14th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act) are State affairs.
It's the best chance Trump has to somehow become President and it's already DOA.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/2020...
""" Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. """
As much as Texas tends to be on the "state's rights" side of things usually, they're really off the bead here. There is, indeed, no legal mechanism by which Texas can say "We have the wrong President because Pennsylvania didn't follow its laws." They could say "Pennsylvania violated Federal voting law via discrimination," but they aren't trying to say that. What they're trying to argue is they suffered harm because PA's laws allow too much chance of fraud, and our government doesn't work that way in general. PA could pass a law saying that everyone gets to write a name on a piece of paper and put it in a giant hat, and the first name drawn is who they'll send their electors to vote for, and there's no grounds by which Texas could contest that. State voting process (barring violations of the 14th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act) are State affairs.
It's the best chance Trump has to somehow become President and it's already DOA.