Replies

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.