The Ohio attorney general (Rep) said he agrees with the interpretation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause as it is written—specifically, that the power to set election rules rests solely with state legislatures. But, he argued, that interpretation should extend to the Supreme Court, which should not be allowed to grant Texas the relief it seeks.

The Lone Star State asked the court to enjoin the defendant states from appointing electors or, in the case of states that have already done so, to order the states to choose new electors in accordance with the Constitution.

“Texas seeks a ‘remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution,’” Yost said. “Such an order would violate, not honor, the Electors Clause. Federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors. And so federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election,” he continued.

(Epoch Times – Political)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF

See last few pages …

“Precisely because Ohio holds this view about the meaning of the Electors Clause, it cannot support Texas’s plea for relief. Texas seeks a “remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution.”

“the relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system:
the idea that the States are sovereigns free to govern themselves. The federal government has only those powers that the Constitution gives to it. And nothing in the Constitution empowers courts to issue orders affirmatively directing the States how to exercise their constitutional authority.”

“It may prove difficult at this late date to fashion a remedy that does not create equal or greater harms”
.