Not perfect, but it pretty clearly establishes that when the US Constitution says a state legislature "may determine" something, whether it's the process for choosing representatives or electors, they really mean "the state" may determine that thing.
It's almost impossible to imagine any state agreeing to ratify the US Constitution with a provision allowing a majority of the state legislature to unilaterally override that state's constitution.
Thanks again. My original comments on this thread are similar to this line of thinking. However, this or any other precedent is obviously not binding on the current USSC should they become further involved in this matter.
And the fact that the current election operation officials in the state did not follow the current USSC order to keep certain ballots separate from counting, may give them adequate cause to side with proposed remedies provided by the current state legislature, could it not? Thanks again.