... Anderson v. Celebrezze decided that "the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States. "
Anderson v Celebrezze was under completely different circumstances, however, and the line you quote was establishing that there was *federal* jurisdiction over the matter, not *interstate standing*.
It has perfect standing, by bringing forth the breaking of the constitution to the SCOTUS, which is their job......
There are no precedents for a state challenging the sovereign actions of another state with regard to elections, and the rationale which Texas uses to argue for standing is extremely thin and shaky, considering that the exact same rationale would equally justify every state challenging every other state over
any state law that sets the conditions of elections.
If *President Trump* filed the same suits, he would have a much, much more solid claim of standing, because
federal standing against a state's election laws is clearly established by
Anderson v. Celebrezze, but
state to state standing would be an entirely new matter.
There is also an issue of joinder.
Also, you do know the inaugeration can be nulled should it be considered the election was not a valid election right? Which would mean Trump would get a free four years, and Biden would be done.....
If you don't understand I mean within the first couple days at most a week or two, not months down the line.
If the election as a whole is invalidated, then the Constitution clearly specifies that the House of Representatives would vote, not that the sitting President would get a "free" term. You may regard that as equivalent since the Republicans hold the majority in the House, but I would argue that it's important to be precise.