I'm still seeing a lot of concern about the Texas Supreme Court filing, which is understandable. From a certain angle, it looks imposing.
So here, in sum, is why there's no need for alarm (thread):
1) The case asks the Supreme Court to exercise "original jurisdiction," skipping lower courts. The Court rarely does this. The Court *can* exercise this jurisdiction in state v. state disputes, but doesn't have to.
It takes 5 justices to hear this case, rather than the usual 4.
2) Usually original jurisdiction applies to state v. state disputes over borders, etc. - for example when NJ and NY sued over control of Ellis Island (Jersey!).
The TX case is something else entirely and could have been heard in lower courts (many have rejected similar claims).
3) The heart of Texas's claim is that it objects to election procedures used in four other states. This is unconstitutional and would lead to utter insanity.
First, The Constitution specifically gives each state the right to run its elections as it sees fit. Done and done.
4) And to allow one state to sue over another state's processes would lead to absurd results. Any state could sue any other state over the election. NJ could sue Alabama, Alaska, Idaho. Arkansas could sue MA, NY, and CA. It would never end.
The Court won't countenance that.