[Boise3981]

This is the exact opposite of the PA Act 77 lawsuit.

This says that the state supreme court has no business overruling the state legislature. But the PA Act 77 lawsuit says that the legislature passed something opposed to the state constitution and it should be overruled by the state supreme court.

This isn't brilliant. It directly contradicts other lawsuits.

Also... Federalism. Texas has no business telling any other state how to conduct their elections (just as CA has no business telling TX how to conduct their elections). This is clearly unconstitutional.

[MikeyB806]

Let’s say that the Legislatures of all of those States passed a law that said only Democrat votes would be counted in the election, and the State SC refused to grant relief to the plaintiff who sued over the Constitutionality of the legislature’s law. If those States refuse to remedy its own government’s illegal conduct, then surely it is another state’s business how those states run their elections.

[frog in a pot]

Texas has no business telling any other state how to conduct their elections (just as CA has no business telling TX how to conduct their elections). This is clearly unconstitutional.

Consider this:
Texas entered into an agreement with other states that provides among other matters, that each state will act in the same manner with regard to a specific action. When a state ignores that obligation each of the other states is damaged.

[gogeo]

This isn't brilliant. It directly contradicts other lawsuits.

That's why it's brilliant. There are separate actions from separate parties with different standing. These parties are not required to be consistent with any other plaintiff.

The Court, however, is required to be consistent. This leaves one less corner for them to hide in.