The dismissal is so short and general and vague. This has been bothering me.... Can you pedes have a look at my theory, let me know your thoughts? If correct, and the more I think about it it fits with what we see, then this isn't really that bad at all:

Since there are "interpretive" and "originalists" in the majority dismissal decision, I think this necessarily explains the simple and general dismissal statement. That's because although the majority agree Texas has no standing, they disagree as to why. The only thing they are agreeing on is that Texas has no standing. Odd for such a historically important declaration. You'd expect to see some explanation at least.

I think the originalist justices think Texas has no standing YET. And I think the interpretive lefties think Texas can't have standing EVER. And the dissenting justices think they should hear the case before dismissing it or not because they are the first court in line for this type of case.

The originalist view might be that until the electoral college meets, the states hold jurisdiction in terms of first court. And in that time frame, Texas isn't yet harmed. Only after the EC meets would Texas be able to be harmed and have standing to sue these states. At that time, even if Texas was somehow wrong, SCOTUS should hear the case and decide if it was harmed and what relief it is due.

The interpretive justices may think their magical interpretive powers show that Texas can never be harmed because leftism. So when writing the dismissal, the ONLY common ground amongst the majority is: "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

It's only the EC that matters. A state can hold a farting competition for elections, then send electors that the legislature chooses. It's only the latter part, the electors, that the constitution / SCOTUS / other states have any judicial interest in. And therefore until the EC meets, Texas hasn't any possible harm to complain about to SCOTUS.

I think this is a great opportunity to take this as a signal that should we lose in state courts and even in some SCOTUS appeals to those losses, Texas can still be heard after the EC meets, and if I'm right would have to be heard at that point.