I'm not a lawyer so I don't have anything credible to say about legal recourse but:

If the threat of a lawsuit can help make more people in TX aware that they've got to do more than just vote in the primary -- If it HELPS publicize and spread the word that they have to participate twice if they truly feel strongly in support of a candidate then, I think talking about lawsuits is a great idea.

I think.

If Hillary where running a good campaign none of this would matter.

The big question is why is this an excuse?  She is behind in popular vote as of today if you count FL and MI.  

Obama will probably win the popular vote in TX and she will win in OH both probably by a % point or two and the overall vote won't change.

That said, it's the system that everyone has known about for months or years.  It's the system both campaigns either had to challenge and reform months ago OR play by accordingly.  One campaign is playing by the systems (admittedly awful) rules better than the other.  For the Clinton campaign to cry foul five days before the election is another sign of desperation.

So, I agree with BTD on the foul nature of caucuses in general and this one in particular.  The rules are bad.  But they're the rules both campaigns knew about (or should have - the Clinton campaign has suggested they're just now learning about them) and have to play by.

"aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process."

"But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit."

"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign,'' said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity."

"Another Democratic official who was privvy to the discussions confirmed that Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week."

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,' the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party.''

The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton 's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle."

"Clinton campaign aides have argued that caucuses favor Obama, whose campaign organization has turned out overwhelming numbers at caucuses in other states."

I recently read in the Texas Observer where Obama's Texas youth director had an issue with the caucus sign in procedure.  He said that it appeared people might be able to sign in as someone who wasn't there and it might be "rife for abuse".

Advocating for your candidate is perfectly fair. Pretending that Barack Obama has been winning because of a winning strategy alone is nonsense.

 Take away his favored MSM status, the overwhelming favoritism by A List Blogs and perhaps it would have been a level playing field.

In TX in particular, voters are not disenfranchised, as they do vote in a primary election in which 2/3 of the delegates are chosen. At least they get to vote, unlike in IA, NV, CO, etc. The system is built in a way such that the candidate with the most ardent support will be rewarded with the most delegates, just as the districts that have the most reliable voters receive more delegates. Being fully engaged in the process in TX has rewards, but everybody still gets to vote.

The bigger question is will these state parties like IA et. al. scrap the caucus system that has received such scrutiny this election?

It seems to be a guarantee that the disenfranchisement will continue forever.

BTD, what do you think can be done to overcome the Catch 22 involved here?