There doesn’t need to be an injured party if the argument is that the action violated express terms of the constitution. Illegal changes to the rules could’ve hurt any candidate in any party by any scale. The outcome was irrelevant. There’s a rule, here’s it broken. End of argument.
The minute you claim targeted victimhood you invoke habeas corpus, and have to prove the injury. No proof of injury + no conclusive proof of illegality = uphill battle to get the case heard.
This is why so many cases flopped. Too much of it based on ANGRY out-of-state subjective was.
It read to me alright but I can see how a court that’s on the Biden side would be able to wilfully dismiss it as “I’m petitioning on behalf of my old gran in Wisconsin who reckons her vote for Donald was robbed because someone from QAnon in Utah did a YouTube on an intervention by a dead dude in Venezuela and I’m FURIOUS ON HER BEHALF, signed Lawyer From Sacramento” nonsense.
I’ll be controversial and say that I fear Trump has undermined the Texas case by injecting his own personal butt-hurt into a case that was benefiting enormously by not being in any way linked to butt-hurt.
But we’ll see.
The minute you claim targeted victimhood you invoke habeas corpus, and have to prove the injury. No proof of injury + no conclusive proof of illegality = uphill battle to get the case heard.
As I believe Eastman was saying, the suit does show lots of evidence of probable fraud (and thus "victimhood"). But since the defendants increased the risk of fraud when they illegally changed the rules, it's up to the defendants to prove that there was no fraud, which of course is impossible to prove, especially given the massive amount of substantive evidence.
So I think there does need to be a possible injured party, else the SC would think that there is no need to issue a remedy, or even take the case. But there doesn't have to be conclusive proof of that fraud.