There would have been standing if Pennsylvania had brought the lawsuit, but the claims Texas made to SCOTUS were already tried and shot down in Pennsylvania's lower courts. These claims weren't of fraud, but that election laws were illegally changed, and that observers were targeted or excluded for their political affiliation. SCOTUS didn't consider those claims, but lower courts in PA did, and none of them saw it worth escalating to SCOTUS.
Even if PA had sued itself over changing election laws, the PA courts would have likely ruled the same, and it would likely never have made it to SCOTUS.
It might seem weird that Texas has no interest in PA's election process, which was how SCOTUS determined it didn't have standing. It actually makes me realize how important the electoral college is to containing voter fraud.
PA only has 20 electoral votes. No matter how corrupt they are, they get 20/538 of the say in the election.
Now, say we switch to popular vote. Now, corrupt PA and CA can inflate their vote counts, and there's no limit on how much they affect the overall vote.
If we did switch to popular vote, SCOTUS probably would have let Texas sue, as shenanigans in PA could unduly fuck TX. However, given the limits in place, I'm OK with deferring to states rights, even if the state is full of fucks.
Anyways, long story short, I think PA lower courts are more to blame for this than SCOTUS.
The lower courts don't "escalate" cases to SCOTUS, the plaintiffs appeal their cases to SCOTUS. And one of the key challenges also mentioned in the Texas suit (constitutionality of PA Act 77) is still chilling on the SCOTUS docket after having an injunction and expedited consideration denied.
You're right though that the EC is exactly why Texas has no standing, their own EC votes were completely unaffected by shenanigans in PA, so they have no legal injury. It's that simple.
At least Gore got his day in court.
There would have been standing if Pennsylvania had brought the lawsuit, but the claims Texas made to SCOTUS were already tried and shot down in Pennsylvania's lower courts. These claims weren't of fraud, but that election laws were illegally changed, and that observers were targeted or excluded for their political affiliation. SCOTUS didn't consider those claims, but lower courts in PA did, and none of them saw it worth escalating to SCOTUS.
Even if PA had sued itself over changing election laws, the PA courts would have likely ruled the same, and it would likely never have made it to SCOTUS.
It might seem weird that Texas has no interest in PA's election process, which was how SCOTUS determined it didn't have standing. It actually makes me realize how important the electoral college is to containing voter fraud.
PA only has 20 electoral votes. No matter how corrupt they are, they get 20/538 of the say in the election.
Now, say we switch to popular vote. Now, corrupt PA and CA can inflate their vote counts, and there's no limit on how much they affect the overall vote.
If we did switch to popular vote, SCOTUS probably would have let Texas sue, as shenanigans in PA could unduly fuck TX. However, given the limits in place, I'm OK with deferring to states rights, even if the state is full of fucks.
Anyways, long story short, I think PA lower courts are more to blame for this than SCOTUS.
The lower courts don't "escalate" cases to SCOTUS, the plaintiffs appeal their cases to SCOTUS. And one of the key challenges also mentioned in the Texas suit (constitutionality of PA Act 77) is still chilling on the SCOTUS docket after having an injunction and expedited consideration denied.
You're right though that the EC is exactly why Texas has no standing, their own EC votes were completely unaffected by shenanigans in PA, so they have no legal injury. It's that simple.