Also,the Federal courts could,unless I'm mistaken,step in if they detect that any voters' 14th Amendndment rights are being violated by a particular jurisdiction's policies regarding the count and/or recounts.
There can be no doubt that Rat Party Headquarters is planning massive chaos in November...and possibly December.ILLary telegraphed that by proclaiming that Plugs should not concede under any circumstances.
The Rats are planning scorched earth in the days and weeks after 11/3.
IIRR..all the SCOTUS did was issue the ruling that IF Florida could recount the entire state, then every state should recount. In short, they asked the FL Supreme court how they could reach that ruling.
It boiled down the equal protection.
BTW..the chief justice of the FL supreme court issued a stark warning in his opinion against the FL supreme court ruling (majority) that their ruling would fail and violated the constitution of the USA.
The FL supreme court rescinded their ruling as a result, and that was the end of that.
It set the GW Bush administration back 6 months. I never liked the Bush clan, but the alternative was FAAAARRR worse. So I voted for the guy.
The reason they do not like the Donald is because he aint one of them. He wont allow for the kickbacks, bribes and fraud. He has exposed the whole GD slimy bastardley works. They make the Mafia look like an Old womens ice cream social.
SCOTUS didn't rule on the Electoral College. They ruled that the state Supreme Court violated the 14th amendment equal protection clause by approving cherry-picking only three counties for recount. SCOTUS said it denied the voters of the other counties their right to have their votes recounted, too. SCOTUS said the whole state had to be recounted.
The issue here is that the whole state plans to be counted, but with the delays in receiving ballots and having to count them manually, they may miss the deadline to certify the elections and miss sending their Electors to the Electoral College.
That's a wholly different matter, and one that is easily remedies by the state legislature using their Article II power to appoint their Electors if the vote can't be certified in time.
The Democrats will argue that the Electoral College vote is illegitimate if some states can't participate. Republicans will argue that the Electoral College already has a mechanism for that, in that a majority of appointed Electors is necessary to win, not a majority of a full Electoral College. States that don't participate simply reduce the number to reach a majority.
And SCOTUS should conclude that the states that don't participate in the Electoral College do it of their own choice, because Article II gives the states the power to choose the method of selecting Electors. In Florida, the legislature was ready to convene and vote on an emergency slate of Electors if the recounts couldn't be completed in time. Any Democrat state that claims that counting mail-in ballots in the time allotted is too much of a burden can simply have their legislatures meet to select their Electors directly.
-PJ
SCOTUS stopped the recount in Florida because they had reached the deadline for the “safe harbor” provision of the Electoral College. The state government wanted to certify the results, but the state supreme court kept interfering. SCOTUS basically said that if the Legislature had passed a law expressing a desire to take advantage of the “safe harbor” provisions (they had), the state courts had no standing to overturn that under the US Constitution. They also cited equal protection issues with the way the recounts were being done selectively.