Yet another ironic post for a yahoo who never leaves his own house in upstate New York.
I Don't live in upstate New York.
Aside from that, Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy in its election lawsuit!
When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices in those states, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)
See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
"Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."
In addition, our Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, “convey the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."
Also see Bush v. Gore in 2000, citing McPherson v. Blacker: "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." In the instant case a "significant departure", e.g., would be Pennsylvania’s passage of ACT 77 by its Legislature which failed to take the prescribed actions to amend the state constitution as needed before implementing it.
Finally, and with respect to the Robert’s Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:
“When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court.”
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.