§ 192.062. PRESIDENTIAL OR VICE-PRESIDENTIAL PARTY NOMINEE. (a) The secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the ballot the name of a political party's replacement nominee for president or vice-president of the United States if:(1) the original nominee withdraws, dies, or is declared ineligible on or before the 74th day before presidential election day; and
(2) the party's state chair delivers certification of the replacement nominee's name, signed by the state chair, to the secretary of state not later than 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day.
(b) If the state chair's certification of a replacement nominee is delivered by mail, it is considered to be delivered at the time of its receipt by the secretary of state.
(c) The name of a nominee who has withdrawn, died, or been declared ineligible shall be omitted from the ballot and the name of the replacement nominee placed on the ballot if a replacement nominee is certified for placement on the ballot as provided by this section. Otherwise, the withdrawn, deceased, or ineligible nominee's name shall be placed on the ballot.
(d) A vote for a withdrawn, deceased, or ineligible nominee whose name appears on the ballot shall be counted as a vote for the nominating political party's presidential elector candidates.
Of course even though Biden's name will be on the ballot, the electors may elect whomever they choose.
What is the law in other states? LINK: Texas Election Code
Since when has the law or convention rules ever been a factor in their decision making?!
Besides, I am sure they would come up with some lame reason why Biden has to step down—sort of like his deferments....
Weren’t the major party conventions within the 70-day limit by the time they concluded? How is that ‘squared’ with Texas election law?
The New Jersey justices, ruling unanimously on Wednesday, said the expired deadline for ballot changes could be overlooked because the state's election laws should be ''liberally construed'' in favor of ''a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey.'' The decision had distinct echoes of the Florida Supreme Court's unanimous decision on Nov. 21, 2000, which extended the deadline for counties that were conducting recounts of the presidential votes to transmit their election returns. As its ''guiding principle,'' the Florida court said it wanted to honor the ''will of the people'' rather than fall back on ''hypertechnical reliance upon statutory provisions'' that would have made the late returns invalid.