That’s an interesting theory, bitt (SCOTUS sending it to Congress to decide).
However, I greatly doubt that the honest Justices (our 5) have even begun to make up their minds, as they haven’t seen the Case.
I did read somewhere that it is conceivable for the Trump campaign to bypass the lower Courts and take it straight to Supremes ... but I thought that would be on a pure legal issue such as the unconstitutional PA law, and not on the Vote Fraud per se.
I don’t think SCOTUS is in the business of hearing parades of witnesses and reviewing other “Raw” evidence ... but maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can shed some light.
So, the Supreme Court would be deciding if the states have followed their own laws (made by their own Legislatures)
If the Legislatures did not make a law regarding the selection of electors (the general election) to change the day of such election (which must be uniform throughout ALL the states) then the Constitution is pretty clear.
I think people are getting the electoral college process with the general selection of electors process confused as well as well as confusing it with Article 1 Sec 4. and Sec 5.
The scenario of a tied electoral college is a whole 'nother ball game.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
US Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2
There is case history on the subject of SCOTUS jurisdiction, including the famous Marbury v. Madison.
Marbury is cited for the proposition that SCOTUS says what the law is. But what does that mean? I view the case as one of conflict of authorities. If a law conflicts with the constitution, which should control, the law? or the constitution? The law at question in Marbury was a SCOTUS jurisdiction law. Plaintiff brought case originally to SCOTUS, the ruling was that the case is not one for which SCOTUS has constitutional "original jurisdiction." SCOTUS couldn't take the case on original jurisdiction just because Congress passed a law to that effect, not amending the constitution.
Back to the post ... it is common for SCOTUS to punt to Congress. They do so with all the "not a qualified POTUS" cases, like against Obama, Cruz. On those, SCOTUS has used basically "not ripe until electoral college ballots are in Congress," and hinting maybe the issue (the meaning of natural born citizen) is for Congress to decide first - and maybe never for SCOTUS to decide. Giving Congress superiority over the constitution flies in the face of Marbury, but we are talking a Court here. Not consistent is the motto.
I haven't given thought to whether any particular case is suitable for SCOTUS original jurisdiction, but my gut says "no." Making jurisdiction a deciding issue instead of a routine threshold issue (follow one of the usual paths, and SCOTUS jurisdiction has to be right, but isn't an issue) would be unwise.
There is an aspect to case progression that provides more than one path to SCOTUS. Plaintiff Trump campaign can sue in state courts or federal courts. My recollection in Bush v. Gore is that suits were filed in both. The famous cases ran through Florida state courts, to the Florida Supreme Court, and appealed to SCOTUS. But there were cases originally filed in federal courts.