Anyone who thinks that Texas has a shot of winning is either high or knows nothing of law.<p>The basis of the case is that PA, GA, WI, and MI erred in enacting unconstitutional election measures, and therefore their election results should be annulled. And this <i>must</i> fail for <i>several</i> reasons.<p>First, Texas doesn't have standing to sue. Texas isn't injured by Pennsylvania's laws. Texas argues its standing on the basis of--wait for it--it makes its electoral votes meaningless. However, the electoral college has a fixed number of votes, so Texas can't even make a "vote dilution" basis for its votes, which is how the usual basis for standing. Therefore, the manner of which any other state chooses its votes <i>literally</i> has no effect on Texas's vote, although this would theoretically change if Texas adopted the National Popular Vote Compact.<p>Second, jurisdiction. These are challenges of other states' laws, other states' practices, and sometimes against other states' constitutions (the claim against PA in particular for the latter). The natural forum for this would obviously be the relevant state courts, although states can't sue each other in state courts usually--which brings back to standing, as Texas not having the ability to sue for these claims strongly suggests that Texas doesn't have standing in the first place.<p>Third, these claims have already been litigated, and already lost, and sometimes those losses have been repeatedly reaffirmed. That horse is well and truly dead, so stop beating it.<p>Fourth, election procedure claims that arise <i>after</i> the election are <i>strongly</i> disfavored. You usually have to justify why you couldn't bring the claim before the election, and waiting a full month after the election to bring the case does not look good (of course, see point #3 for why Texas brought the case).<p>Fifth, for SCOTUS original jurisdiction claims specifically, SCOTUS really doesn't like original jurisdiction. So states really need to show why they couldn't bring the claim up in other forums. Such as objecting to electors in the House, which is how the Constitution explains it is supposed to be done. (Of course, there is a law that says that votes certified by a specific date will not be questioned by the House).<p>Finally, relief. It's established in SCOTUS precedent that, even in election procedure claims arising after the election, the votes that are validly cast under the procedure are still to be counted. Asking the state legislatures to select their electoral slates as relief is not only literally unprecedented, but it is the <i>exact opposite</i> of what precedent specifies for relief.<p>This is the stupidest of the election cases I've seen so far, and I thought the legislator arguing that he couldn't reasonably be expected to know the law was pretty bad.