It benefited Trump a great deal during his time in office including on the emoluments clause. The point is that the person doing the suing has to demonstrate actual harm. Despite what you may believe, Texas voters are not harmed under any legal doctrine ever constructed by how Pennsylvania runs its election. That's because Pennsylvania is free to run its election how it sees fit, just like Texas is. That's federalism, and it's a legal philosophy that has been promoted more strongly by conservatives than liberals over the years. For a long time conservatives argued that the feds telling states how to run an election was very bad. One state telling another how to run an election would be far worse under that legal theory.

Pennsylvania voters had opportunities to sue about these things, but they lost every case. In other cases they sued after an election rather than before, which also goes against the "laches" doctrine which says that you can't unring the bell if you missed the deadline. In none of these cases did they actually allege fraud at any kind of scale that approaches what would be needed to flip the result.

Long story short, you can't just tell a bunch of conservative judges that they should have heard a case that had no merit under conservative legal doctrines just because it would have made everyone feel better. You have to bring facts and legal arguments to a case in order to get that case heard or else the number of meritless cases would simply swamp the judiciary. The various plaintiffs at all levels had their cases rejected because they didn't have facts and legal arguments to back them up even though they had a judiciary that would have been sympathetic to their arguments if they had any merit.