[Vermont Lt]

Actually, I am trying to figure out the argument where Texas has any standing on what the other states do.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

States have a vested interest in other states conducting honest elections.

State are peers.

Some states are NOT more equal than others.

[BobL]

“Actually, I am trying to figure out the argument where Texas has any standing on what the other states do.”

Well, my answer is that if it is a federal election, then every state within the US has standing. If it were just a statewide election, with no one going to DC and voting on stuff that affects Texas, then yes, no standing for Texas.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Wouldn't states have standing if another rogue state threatened them with destruction? Isn't that what's at play here?

I would also think violations of the Voting Rights Act would be at play. The actions of five corrupt states have obviously violated the voting rights of all of the other states.

[The MAGA-Deplorian]

Actually, I am trying to figure out the argument where Texas has any standing on what the other states do.

They big one is the violation of the equal protections clause. But Texas’s big problem is that they also made changes in Dallas, Tarrent and Harris counties that even the Texas SC refused to hear. It may require other states oke Tennessee, Florida, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi, etc to put the gun to the head of SCOTUS. It is a good gamble though. Surprised they waited so long!

[elenvee]

I suggest you read the suit. It makes a good argument for standing, saying that because these states used non-Constitutional means to throw the electoral votes to Biden, it has disenfranchised Texas voters, who voted for Trump using Constitutional means. Further, because of the unique power of the VPOTUS in issues before the Senate, states have a compelling right that VPOTUS be elected only through clear Constitutional means.

[Ancesthntr]

“Actually, I am trying to figure out the argument where Texas has any standing on what the other states do.”

---

The government of Texas is, as a body, the group of people chosen by the citizens of Texas to represent them. It filed this case mostly on Equal Protection grounds, namely that the failure of those other states to properly verify all of the ballots that were voted in the defendant states had the effect of diluting the votes of Texas residents and, thereby, their failure takes away Equal Protection from all Texas voters.

If Texas doesn’t have standing, then who or what does? Can a fraudulent election not be challenged under the Vermont Lt rules of procedure?

[Charles Martel]

Actually, I am trying to figure out the argument where Texas has any standing on what the other states do.

The suit focuses only on presidential electors in a federal election, not the down-ballot elections that are fully each separate state's concern.

The Equal Protection argument is that the lawful votes of Texas citizens are diminished when other states allow fraudulently-produced ballots (be they cast by illegal aliens, felons, repeat voters, or manufactured in the names of dead former residents) to be counted.

It is a 14th Amendment violation. Texas has drawn its line in the sand. Again.