SCOTUS said "no standing". In this case, since SCOTUS is the jurisdiction, it means Texas has no injury. This is true, Texas doesn't have an injury (dilution, failure of equal protection) until electors cast votes based on the results of the defendant states' tainted polling of their populace. State legislatures may correct this before those votes are cast.
If they do not, Texas will have injury; and will have standing.
They did not say Texas had no injury. They said Texas does not get to concern itself with how other states run their elections. It was a terrible statement by the freshman justices.
Lack of standing is because of wrong jurisdiction, or no injury. This would seem the right (original) jurisdiction.
So assume SCOTUS is calling the tabulation of popular vote the "election". Then Texas does not have any interest in how other states run their elections. The only thing that involves Texas is the usage of that tabulation to apply electors, who then vote. Since that hasn't happened, it's true that Texas currently has no judicially cognizable interest (and has suffered no injury).
The alternative is that this is, indeed, the wrong jurisdiction. The only way that would happen is if the case involves treason. (Article III)
Paxton discussed the jurisdiction issue. It is general jurisdiction because scotus is the only remedy for states.
I was under the assumption they were not claiming injury from electors. They were claiming the certification by these states was done under unlawful circumstances(laws were ignored in tabulation).
SCOTUS said "no standing". In this case, since SCOTUS is the jurisdiction, it means Texas has no injury. This is true, Texas doesn't have an injury (dilution, failure of equal protection) until electors cast votes based on the results of the defendant states' tainted polling of their populace. State legislatures may correct this before those votes are cast.
If they do not, Texas will have injury; and will have standing.
They did not say Texas had no injury. They said Texas does not get to concern itself with how other states run their elections. It was a terrible statement by the freshman justices.
Lack of standing is because of wrong jurisdiction, or no injury. This would seem the right (original) jurisdiction.
So assume SCOTUS is calling the tabulation of popular vote the "election". Then Texas does not have any interest in how other states run their elections. The only thing that involves Texas is the usage of that tabulation to apply electors, who then vote. Since that hasn't happened, it's true that Texas currently has no judicially cognizable interest (and has suffered no injury).
The alternative is that this is, indeed, the wrong jurisdiction. The only way that would happen is if the case involves treason. (Article III)
Paxton discussed the jurisdiction issue. It is general jurisdiction because scotus is the only remedy for states.
I was under the assumption they were not claiming injury from electors. They were claiming the certification by these states was done under unlawful circumstances(laws were ignored in tabulation).