Absolutely
Texas doesn't have standing. Each state can make whatever laws they want regarding their own elections. They don't even have to have elections. They could have passed a law that says they draw the winners name out of a hat, or they ask one person at random and they choose the winner. The US Constitution doesn't care how states pick electors.
So, for another state to argue that the way they picked electors harmed them, is ridiculous. Their actions had no effect on the ability of the State of Texas or any other state to pick electors according to their own laws.
What about the argument the these states didn't follow their own laws. Well, that's not an issue for Texas or any other state to decide and it's not an issue for the SCOTUS to decide either. SCOTUS only decides things based on US law and the federal constitution. Since elections are left to the states there isn't anything in the constitution for them to stand on so long as everyone in the unique state had the same opportunities to vote.
The problem with the arguments that the state violated their own laws/constitution is that the supreme courts of these states have rules that they didn't and those are the ultimate arbiters on those matters. There isn't a method for SCOTUS to tell a state they are violating their own laws if the state SC says they did not. When SCOTUS rules on a state law it is in regard to what the US Constitution says on the law. It's the basic philosophy behind dual federalism.
There's also the issue that the arguments in the filing are awful and rely on the same terrible conspiracy theories, non-experts, and day drinking witnesses that have been laughed out of courts across the nation.
This isn't going anywhere because of all of the items above and because just hearing this case would open the door for hundreds of original jurisdiction cases to be filed every election between states that don't like the outcomes in other states for any federal office.