If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
judicial or other methods or proceduresIf SCOTUS rules that PA didn't follow the proper procedures, it could declare it didn't meet the Safe Harbor requirements. That would be significant, as it would deny the elector certification by the governor the presumption of validity in Congress. SCOTUS could also state that this is an issue for PA state legislature to address, embarrassing the PA state senators who refused to address the issue.
I think that’s a misreading of the law and the Constitution.
Not knowing what provisions do exist in state law in the various contested states is an issue ? You can’t tell what that bit in 3USC5 means without knowing the state laws in each state. And, I don’t pretend to know those laws.
But, its construction is still clear in being positively assertive... “if there is asserted a means of resolving controversy” that is defined in state law... then that will govern, as long as its operation weighs in before the closing of the window 6 days prior.
That says nothing at all about what happens either if the state law remains silent on that means of resolution under 3USC5... or what happens if the state actions, rather than being positively assertive, are instead the opposite... a negation... and a deliberate withholding of any validation.
If the state FAILS to provide for the means of a final determination of controversy... or deliberately acts with intent in failing to resolve a controversy... that paragraph does nothing to illuminate the law... and it avoids the Congressional imposition of a time line... by avoiding the condition being so limited.
If SCOTUS rules that PA didn’t follow the proper procedures, it could declare it didn’t meet the Safe Harbor requirements. That would be significant, as it would deny the elector certification by the governor the presumption of validity in Congress. SCOTUS could also state that this is an issue for PA state legislature to address, embarrassing the PA state senators who refused to address the issue.
***********************************************
That’s what I think. I don’t think they want to decide the election, so they are going to throw it to the legislators or congress.
I have a hard time believing they would set the date for the 9th, only to say ... Oh sorry, you missed the date.
That makes no sense. Why take it at all?