[semimojo]

In think that in that case, SCOTUS would side with the legislature.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

I think it's implicit that the legislatures can determine the method of choosing electors consistent with their state's constitution.

The legislature of PA has already chosen that method and put it into law. According to the PA constitution if they want to change it they have to pass a bill and either have the governor sign it or get two thirds of each house to agree.

No one says they can't change it, just that they have to do it under the constitution.

I think it's very different than FL because it would unambiguously be in violation of the election laws the legislature already passed and I suspect SCOTUS would agree.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think it's very different than FL because it would unambiguously be in violation of the election laws the legislature already passed...

Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong...

If the Florida Supreme Court was repeatedly changing election law on the fly, then isn't the Pennsylvania court and governor wanting to extend the date to receive mail-in ballots also a violation of the election law that the legislature already passed?

Wouldn't it be in the power of the legislature to say that if the court changes the passed law, then the legislature has the right to change the law back to stop the court's overreach without oversight?

If the court refuses, then isn't it in the legislature's constitutional power to declare a one-time slate of electors because the governor and the court created unconstitutional chaos in the system and the legislature is obligated to step in and fix it?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

One other question...

How does your statement "consistent with their state's constitution" square with Article VI Section 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Does "to the contrary notwithstanding" mean that the Legislature's execution of its Article II Section 1 power is supreme and is not constrained by any laws passed within the state?

-PJ