I'm a little confused about the Supreme Court's decision to deny the Texas lawsuit. It seems to me that it was denied, essentially, because Texas has no business in how Pennsylvania (and others) hold their elections. Is this correct? If so, what would be the reasoning for this?

Hm. That seems odd. It makes sense to me that, if these decisions made without approval of the legislature did affect the election, it would have negatively affected (injured?) the comparative worth of Texan votes.

Wasn't Texas suing because each of those four states acted unconstitutionally because a member of the executive/judicial branch modified voter laws without the involvement of the legislative branch? It seems fair that another state should be able to step in and call them on it.