1. It’s not a “nationwide election.” It’s the aggregated result of 51 separate election or selection processes. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t even require states to hold elections to select their presidential electors. This is why each state has its own election officials, their own in-person and absentee ballot processes, it’s own poll hours on Election Day, etc.
2. Once you accept the idea of a “national election,” you inevitably empower Congress to override all state laws and impose national standards for all aspects of elections. This is not a good thing. More importantly, there is no constitutional basis for it.
3. Related to the previous point … Once you accept the idea that Federal courts have the legal authority to override a state government in a presidential election, you’ve already lost the battle AND the war.
How do the State of Texas and the other 21 states that joined that lawsuit lack standing?
I explained this elsewhere on this thread. States have no standing to use Fedral courts to enforce laws in other states. Period.
Texas had an additional “standing” issue in 2020. They were filing a Federal lawsuit accusing other states of violating their election laws, but Texas itself also had problems with some major local jurisdictions (Harris County/Houston, for example) violating TEXAS election law. So under the legal standards Texas was using in its lawsuit, its own electoral votes should have been disqualified.
The Constitution confers upon the legislature of each state the power to direct the manner in which the electors are chosen.
That being the case, why is it that the state’s executive branch certifies whether the electors were chosen legally? If the electors were not chosen according to the manner in which the state’s legislature directed, then the Constitution has been violated. - specifically, the US Constitution has been violated.
Potential violations of the US Constitution are the purvey of the United States, not just the state in which the violation occurred.