One thing to keep in mind: While the Constitution says electors are appointed in the manner the Legislature chooses, the courts have also held that the method for choosing the electors has to be selected prior to the votes being cast. So you couldn’t have a case where the method of selecting electors was by popular vote (which is true of all states right now), and then have the legislature deciding to have the governor or legislature appoint the electors directly after the vote has been held. Any such changes would only apply to subsequent elections. You can’t change the rules after the game has started.
The Constitution doesn't put a limit on the state legislature's power to choose the method.
Do you really think the Supreme Court would allow a chaotic situation to persist past the Congressional deadline for the Electoral College vote? Isn't that why they took Bush v Gore in the first place?
The Constitution doesn't tell the states how to conduct their elections, so I can't see how SCOTUS can bind the legislature from exercising its plenary power while allowing a state to run rampant using subordinate powers.
I don't believe that SCOTUS would prevent a state legislature from putting an end to an uncertain count that threatens the entire Electoral College when the Constitution grants the state the power to choose the method, early, late, or whenever.
-PJ
I think there's a difference between a state "changing election law" and exercising its own Constitutional plenary power.
A state that calls a special session to appoint Electors is not "changing election law," since its Constitutional power to select the method of choosing elections is Supreme law of the Land and superior to "election law."
"Changing election law" would be changing ballot deadlines, changing rules for challenging ballots, changing candidate qualifications, etc.
This isn't that.
-PJ