ripe. The lower court's have been playing games with laches and mootness. If necessary, Texas and others could argue that it wasn't foreseeable that defendats would act as they did, or that it would materially affect the election. Conclussions like laches are used against disfavored litigants. I wouldn't expect that from SCOTUS in this case, at least not from the majority.
It wasn’t forseeable? Really? Even Trump was flipping out about the changes and suspected it would impact the election.