I think that's being too specific.
I think the relief being asked for was a finding from the Supreme Court that the election was conducted unconstitutionally and the certification was overturned.
That's it.
Once SCOTUS does that, then US Code takes over.
The goals was to invoke 3 U.S. Code § 2.Failure to make choice on prescribed day:
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
The Supreme Court wouldn't be asked to direct the legislatures to do anything. That's already in US Code. All they needed was for SCOTUS to set aside the certification on Constitutional grounds, and then let the law take over.
This is where 3 U.S. Code § 5.Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors would have come into play (focus on the bold to read past the prepositional phrases):
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
This says that if SCOTUS (or any court) rules that the Electors were appointed unconstitutionally, that is binding and the legislature are free to follow § 2.
It's clear that SCOTUS knew this, because Alito originally set the hearing date for December 9 and moved it to December 8 to meet the safe harbor deadline in § 5. Then they refused to hear the case, because § 5 would have given the legislature the authority to exercise § 2 if SCOTUS ruled on the merits.
-PJ
“All they needed was for SCOTUS to set aside the certification on Constitutional grounds”
They don’t “need” that. They can set aside the tally for whatever reason they find sufficient.
Obviously I’m not being clear. My apologies.
“§ 5 would have given the legislature the authority to exercise § 2 if SCOTUS ruled on the merits.”
but they already have that authority! From the Constitution.
Yeah, the media is - at least big media- foreign influence garbage that will tell US citizens whatever lie profits big media and I agree all counter-facts are helpful.
OK, the SC had a chance to produce proof that could help the legislatures- but so do many other courts.