I found this article from CNN from November 22, 2000: Florida Legislature would pick electors if votes not certified by deadline.
The gist of the article is that the legislature was bound to the laws that were in place, so they couldn't act until after the certification date had passed. Once that happened, they would have plenary power (as you correctly say) to appoint the Electors in any manner that they choose.
What they could NOT do was suspend the law that was in place and unilaterally choose Electors. They had to wait for the legislatively chosen certification date to pass without a certified election result, and then they could act.
SCOTUS intervened before this date to stop the rogue actions of the Florida State Supreme Court and let the laws passed by the legislature proceed.
So it's a hard one to puzzle out.
Should SCOTUS have let the partisan Florida Supreme Court run roughshod and then leave the state in turmoil with the presidential election result in the balance?
Does the legislature have plenary power to set aside legally passed laws and act unilaterally on an impromptu basis, or must they abide the laws they passed with plenary powers until other triggers in the laws allow them to take further actions?
And who has the initiative here? If the legislature was bound by the laws they passed, then did SCOTUS have the initiative to act to stop the rogue court from taking unconstitutional acts against the state law?
When you think about it, all that SCOTUS really did was stop the Florida Supreme Court from overriding the legislature so that the laws in place could be followed.
What do you say?
-PJ
“What do you say?”
Well, I’m an old guy with a Constitution fetish (although I’m considering switching to the Declaration).
The Founders were very concerned about the Presidency becoming a way for the (small, limited) national government to take over the States.
Everything they did, they did for a reason. They debated National Popular Vote. They debated election by the Senate, the House, or both.
They wound up with appointment by the State Legislatures, doubly indirect. Legislators chosen by the People voting (in their States) would then choose Electors voting in their State capitals would appoint the President, who would PRESIDE over the national government to make sure the rights of both States and People were preserved.
So, I defend the bottom line - it’s an appointive, not an elected, office and all three branches of the national government are excluded from participating, unless the Electoral College is divided, in which case the States still appoint the President by the House voting - BUT EACH STATE GETS ONE VOTE. California = Wyoming when the House appoints the President.
This highlights the point that it is that States that are the main actors. It’s not the population-apportioned House that chooses - it’s the STATES, as equals, who do the work.