Another precedent was set by the Supreme Court declaring a state didnt have standing to sue regarding a federal election. Therefore the SC should not have standing within the states to meddle in how they run elections, whether election law, redistricting, etc. States need to not ask, “can we do this?”, just assume, yes we can based on the 10th amendment, and proceed ahead.
True!
Enter the law of unintended consequences..
There are currently several states that have passed laws to force their electors to vote for whomever wins the nationwide popular vote. From what I know those laws don't kick in until a certain number of other states go along... (16 states, i think)
So let's say a small state like Oklahoma decides it wants to fraudulently elect the next president. They produce election results that say Candidate XYZ received 30,000,000 votes and the results are certified by their SOS. Those 30M votes push the national popular vote to Candidate XYZ. Now those states like California and Colorado who voted to follow the popular vote, are by law required to certify their electors to vote for Candidate XYZ and by precedent (Texas filing) cannot do anything about Oklahoma's obvious fraud....
California forced to vote with Oklahoma... hahahahahahaha...