Replies

SCOTUS has never weighed in on such a matter because no state legislature has tried to "pass" something while not in session.

But it has. See below:

The state does not act by its people in their collective capacity, but through such political agencies as are duly constituted and established. The legislative power is the supreme authority, except as limited by the constitution of the state, and the sovereignty of the people is exercised through their representatives in the legislature unless by the fundamental law power is elsewhere reposed. The Constitution of the United States frequently refers to the state as a political community, and also in terms to the people of the several states and the citizens of each state. What is forbidden or required to be done by a state is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist. The clause under consideration does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that "each state shall," and if the words "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself.

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/

Because they aren't in session, they won't have committees, can't have quorum, can't have a floor vote, etc...

Each house need only sit as a committee of the whole, with a bare majority in each house all that is required according to the Electors Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. Anyone who doesn't like can take it to the federal courts, where they will lose.

You're just ignoring LARGE sections of that paragraph. That case itself says that the legislative process - as designed by the legislature and enshrined in the state constitution - it supreme to even the legislature itself.

It says the legislative power is the ultimate power within the state except as limited by the constitution of the state. So when the state constitution - created by the legislature - says that a governor's signature is required for a law to take effect, then the legislature can't just take it back later. A law changing how the electors are distributed would require a governor's signature according to the state constitution (as created by the legislature).

Further, when the legislature itself creates laws that say "The legislature's session will expire on 11/30 at 11:59pm" and that it can only be called back via a special session called by the governor... then the legislature can't just meet at the holiday inn in December and "pass" something.

And that's before we even get to the practical difficulties of the fact that a majority won't want to show up and pass a resolution.

The legislature themselves has created the rules and constitution that ended their session on 11/30. They can't just change that because they feel like it. The SCOPA would certainly not go along with it, and since this is state law/state constitution there's no federal role here.

You're drastically misreading that case.