> The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states.
It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing.
> Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing.
The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.
> even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules,
The US Constitution, in Article II Section 1, says:
> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
You see the keywords "may direct"? That means that legislatures are empowered to delegate authority as they see fit in their statutes. So if the legislature says that the governor and officials can change some things, then the governor and officials have the authority to challenge them.
> there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules
Where did I say that? I said that Texas does not have the right to object to Pennsylvania. A voter in their state can sue their own state in their own state courts if they believe their officials have violated their own state laws. And if you paid attention in the spring, summer, and fall of 2020, you will have found that several people did challenge the actions of their state governments in these regards, and those actions were sometimes successful.
What was not successful was other people (including the Texas v Pennsylvania suit) suing the officials in federal court, and waiting until well after the election to do so.
> Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith.
Then keep in mind that losing on standing doesn't mean no one can bring the suit, it only means that the plaintiff is not the right person to do so. There's a big difference between the two, and jumping straight to the former smacks of bad faith to me.
Since you added this after I wrote this comment:
> If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature?
No. No one has the right to sue in federal court on that matter. You would sue the governor (assuming he's the one who is supposed to sign off on the electors in Oregon law) in the appropriate Oregon court. Alternatively, assuming this an executive order that is drawn up before the election, you would sue the governor and the mayor in Oregon court to enjoin from enacting the executive order, assuming that Oregon law prohibits such an executive order from being made.
It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing.
> Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing.
The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.