I am no attorney, but it didn’t make sense to me that this was somehow such a superior, all-eggs-into-the-basket case.
All states have a set number of electors that is not changed by how other states execute their elections, so I never quite got the “dilution” argument.
To me the state-by-state fraud and the unlegislated change in election laws seemed the more obvious arguments.
This had nothing to do with fraud. It was whether or not individual counties and even election districts could declare rules that were those other than the law imposed by the constitutionally mandated process, that is, through the legislature.
Other states followed the law, those 4 states did not. So therefore they did prejudice the other states.
However, the justices bailed because they were afraid. But they’re setting off the very thing they were fearing.
“the unlegislated change in election laws seemed the more obvious arguments.”
You can read about that position when you wish. It’s the core of the Texas filing.