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
Arguably, yes. It's an aggressive interpretation of PA's Free and Equal Elections Clause but the PASC provided its reasoning and claims it's a reasonable response to a natural disaster. SCOTUS hasn't yet chosen to slap them down.
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?
Nothing's stopping the legislature from passing new legislation closing the natural disaster "loophole", but they can't just declare it gone.
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?
Of course not. That's not the way our system of checks and balances works.
It isn't the legislature, particularly on a partisan basis, that determines whether a court action is constitutional or not.
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?
There's nothing in the PA constitution than says the legislature can't determine how electors are chosen, so there's not really a conflict.
The state constitution does, however, determine the process for the legislature to make that choice.
It really can't be any other way. Without the law making process defined in the constitution how would the legislature do it?
For example, what would the margin of legislative votes need to be? Simple majority? Super majority? Declaration by the House Speaker and Senate leader?
How do the new rules get memorialized and published? A memo to the public?
Once you step outside the state's constitutional process for making laws the process is literally lawless and entirely up to the most powerful faction in the state legislature.
I don't think that's what the framers envisioned.