[Alberta's Child]

The courts should not take months to resolve this. The Electoral College vote is already established for a date in December under Federal law (the Monday after the second Wednesday in December), and the court challenges will almost certainly have to be resolved before that.

In a surreal scenario where bedlam and uncertainty still exists by that EC date, it would not be out of line for the legislatures of the contested states to vote on their own slate of electors to send to the Electoral College vote.

All of the contested states except Nevada have REPUBLICAN legislatures.

As I said last night as this drama began to unfold ... the U.S. is going to get an awesome lesson in civics and constitutional law over the next few weeks.

[CommerceComet]

In a surreal scenario where bedlam and uncertainty still exists by that EC date, it would not be out of line for the legislatures of the contested states to vote on their own slate of electors to send to the Electoral College vote.

Despite the expected howls of disapproval from the left, it is authorized in the U.S. Constitution. Article 2, Section 1.2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

[crz]

Thank you! You are absolutely correct. Each state gets ONE vote in the case of it going to the House of Reps.

So count the republican state legislatures and if there are more that are required (majority), then we know the results.

[RandallFlagg]

After reading your post, I wanted to ask this:
Can’t the courts order the contested states to throw out and not count ballots submitted after the polls closed?