If my understanding of the SCOTUS ruling is correct, none of the evidence matters.
Vote fraud is just fine if the state government decides to go along with it. And neither the state’s citizens or the the other states have standing to stop it.
That seems to be the way it went down; and yet they were involved in Bush v. Gore.
I still don't get why the USSC thought Texas citizens didn't have standing since their votes were disenfranchised by the obvious fraud committed by other States. Yes, I get that a State can't dictate how another State conducts their elections. However, the fraud was already apparent and the Supremes should have heard the lawsuit on its merits.
Seems you’ve just about got it right.
They were injured by being disenfranchized.
True, but it’s now pitting state legislatures vs. executives. Legislators in AZ, GA, NV, and PA sent slates of Trump electors in competition with the Gov/SOS certification of Bidet wins in those states. So now that they said they’re staying out of it, they kinda painted themselves in a corner. Course, Roberts said in the Ebolacare mandate case, that the ACA was a bad law but it wasn’t SCOTUS job to fix bad laws and the voters should deal with it at the polls, whereas when a conservative law is enacted by political means, it turns out it IS SCOTUS job to overturn them after all. So it seems whatever ‘reasoning’ leads to the liberal result is what they come up with.