The SCOTUS ruling didn't sit right with me following their own logic. Surely Texas has incurred damages, but I couldn't put it into words. I think I've done so now; GET THIS TO THE RELEVANT ATTORNEYS, THEY NEED TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT:

The SCOTUS has ruled "The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot"

IOW: Texas hasn't demonstrated damages by another state's election impropriety, nothing else in the case is relevant

This argument is FALSE as follows:

1. Freedom of speech and discourse is a necessary pillar for a functioning democracy as set forth by the constitution, and guaranteed by the first amendment. Free and open discourse implicitly gives power of persuasion in matters legal, ethical, and social.

2. In holding free and fair elections, we (Texas) are subject to persuasion by individuals of our own and other states in matters pertaining to voting.

3. Our power of persuasion is denied to us by those states not upholding free and fair elections, while keeping us subject to powers of persuasion on voting matters from other states

4. We, the state of Texas, are placed in an undue bind by such states: resist such outside persuasion, or uphold our legal constitutional obligations.

IF WE REMAIN OPEN AND THEY REMAIN CLOSED, WE (TEXAS) ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR PERSUASION, HOWEVER THEY ARE MOOT TO OURS. THE POWER OF PERSUASION GRANTED TO US THROUGH OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BEING NECESSARY FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF A DEMOCRACY, HAS THUS BEEN VIOLATED. THE SCOTUS ARGUMENT IS INCORRECT.