Wrong, but he appreciates swampers giving him cover. The Constitution gives it to legislatures. But a state clearly violated that rule. Texas and 20 other states clearly had standing when Pennsylvania broke the mutual contract.
He might have ruled differently after a case, but its indefensible to say Texas and the others had no standing.
All states are parties to a contract. When Four members violate that contract, the remedy is clear. Other parties may sue to force compliance. Compliance could be as simple as the defendant state legislatures confirming that it was their process.
But Roberts is an amateur searching for a sophistry solution, just as he did in the Obamacare case. He is an advocate for the Bush wing, and a closet homo. He is not a dispassionate jurist.
My view is that the offered “standing” basis for rejection was sleight-of-hand to avoid the scenario of not providing relief.
I would think the three kooks didn’t want for the reason of protecting the Dem P{arty, and three others didn’t want it because it would bring disrepute on the court since couldn’t DO anything about it.