[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””I dont believe SCOTUS will rule that way. I am not even expecting them to allow the plaintiff to continue.”””

---

Thank you for challenging my assumptions. Upon further review, this is what I believe will happen.

1. SCOTUS will tell the political parties. Quit bringing your political disagreements to the court. Our forefathers gave us a Constitution more than 200 years ago that clearly spelled out the rules for conducting elections.

2. First Constitutional rule. If a State Legislature does not agree with the popular vote in their state, they have the power to override the popular vote by selecting their own electors.

3. Second Constitutional rule. If the US House of Representatives does not agree with the Electoral College vote, the House of Representatives can override the Electoral College and select their own President.

And if I were SCOTUS I would also say. “Political parties, we live in 2020 and there is no excuse for illegal voting as we have more computer power than ever to detect and prevent illegal voters. Just do it!!!”

[PerConPat]

I can't think of more likely scenarios than yours. I do, however, believe a route to the House for a contingent election for president would go through both the House and Senate during the session to count/challenge electoral votes.