This order seems to be based on technical considerations.
Good thing to know. I was afraid at first it might be based on decency, morality or even respect for the will of the people, but all those are clearly irrelevant to our federal courts today.
It’s the technicalities that SCOTUS always deals with. Very fine points of law.
What I don’t “get” as a layman is: in the Roberts Obamacare decision he set out that it’s not the job of SCOTUS to counter elections. In other words, we voted for Obama, we voted (collectively) for a Dem House and Senate. So it’s not the Court’s/Courts’/SCOTUS’s job to overturn what the elected officials made law.
BUT in state after state, the one-man/one-woman referenda passed fairly overwhelmingly. When challenged in the court, however, the votes of the peoples of the several states were overturned by one judge, then three judges, perhaps an en banc court, and seemingly on Monday, the SCOTUS. How does that compute?