I like Orly, but I think she is wrong here. The Presidential election is one held by an Electoral College. The States do not even have to hold elections to determine whom they "send" to the Electoral College, and the people they "send" are Constitutionally free to vote for whomever they want to. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution clearly envisions that the Electoral Collage might choose someone who is not eligible. Eligibility is clearly the responsibility of Congress, not the States, and Congress abdicated.
ML/NJ
State laws assign the majority vote to electors do they not? There may be a couple states that don’t but I believe that’s the case for most or am I mistaken? Serious question, not being a twit.
Congress isn’t given authority in the Presidential election. Since the authority to determine eligibility is not given specifically to any other body and, as you mentioned, the Constitution envisions that a President elect could make it past both the states and Congress even though being ineligible, the ultimate responsibility falls to the Supreme Court. They’ve evaded that responsibility by claiming they haven’t had any “cases” before them to decide, since nobody has standing to bring a case.
But a state does have standing to determine eligibility; it is supposedly happening all the time, since Secretaries of State in some states are specifically required to only include candidates who are eligible for the positions they seek. IIRC, California is one state where the SOS has previously kept somebody off the ballot because they were not Constitutionally eligible, so I would think because of that precedent and equal protection/due process, citizens would have a valid legal reason to say that eligibility must be determined for ALL candidates.
The point that could be problematic here, from a preliminary glance and a very non-expert eye, is the lack of a federal action that usurps states’ rights. The feds haven’t done anything on this issue. And state officials have refused to do anything on it either.