I don't have a horse in this race, but...
does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?
does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?
That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law.
I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections.
EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2.
EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/
The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.)
OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.
It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.