[Political Junkie Too]

Again, you side-stepped the core issue.

From your quote:

"Whenever presidential electors are appointed by popular election, then the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged without invoking the penalty...

The point you seem to wish to ignore is that we're talking about a situation where the state fails to appoint because the "popular election" results cannot be determined by the safe harbor date prior to the Electoral College meeting to vote.

This scenario is premised on the theory that the Democrat states went to mail-in ballots to purposely strain the system, and then force court challenges to delay the certification of these elections to some point in the future in order to deny President Trump a clear win on election day. Extending the deadline to receive the mail-in ballots was a significant part of delaying the certification while Democrat lawyers challenge the votes and demand the inclusion of late votes with unclear postmarks.

There was early talk in the media of the election stretching into January and Nancy Pelosi becoming acting President. I attempted to debunk this talk by saying:

1. The same chaos that makes determining the Presidential election impossible will also affect calling the House races. If Republican states can certify their House races but Democrat states cannot, then it's likely that the seated Republicans in the House will have a majority because the delayed Democrat seats are vacant and won't choose Pelosi as Speaker.
2. Even if the Senate races also can't be determined, two-thirds of the Senate are not running and still seated. Because Article V says "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate," Governors in these Democrat states can appoint a Senator to fill the vacancy until the votes are resolved, leaving a functioning Senate in place.
3. The safe-harbor date for the Electoral College means that the choosing of Electors cannot be stretched into 2021. There is no scenario where the Speaker becomes the acting President because of Democrat-induced chaos. The Electoral College WILL meet and they WILL choose a President.

So getting back to the original premise of this discussion, if the state is at risk of failing to appoint its Electors, does the legislature have the power to step in and directly appoint the electors before the safe harbor date passes? Florida certainly thought so. The alternative is the disenfranchisement of the entire state.

-PJ

[semimojo]

...if the state is at risk of failing to appoint its Electors, does the legislature have the power to step in and directly appoint the electors before the safe harbor date passes?

In my opinion, no. Not without going through the constitutionally sanctioned process.

And SCOTUS precedent is on my side.

Just because they'll be a messy outcome isn't justification for ignoring the constitution.

Our system isn't based on us ultimately asking Daddy (the state legislature) to resolve our conflicts.

The US Constitution defined a process regardless of the PA result and I think that's what SCOTUS will uphold.