Federal law says the election results are supposed to be completed by the end of election day.
The several states who were sued broke that law.
The mercurial nature of the Supreme Court has been laid bare for all to see.
The electors have one day to vote
The people that state legislators allow to appoint the electors have as much time as their state legislators choose.
If that's the case, then the Federal law is blatantly unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures to determine the manner of selecting their electors in a presidential election. The only requirement it has in terms of the timing is that the electors must convene for the Electoral College vote on the same day.
This is why there are so many variations among the states in how their elections are conducted. Some allow mail-in ballots. Some REQUIRE mail-in ballots. Some start counting ballots on Election Day. Some start counting weeks ahead of time. Etc., etc.
Fixed it.
That is one of the points of the suit that I heard about on talk radio, say what you may about that particular source. The edicts allowing ballots to be received up to 9 days after election day effectively hurt all the voters in the other states that stopped the vote on election day. If the Supremes heard the case and ultimately invalidated those edicts, every ballot that could be proved to have been received after November 3 gets thrown out. That would presumably include all those truckloads of ballots that arrived at counting centers in the wee hours of November 4.
Such a ruling could have effectively tilted the victory away from Biden and toward Trump. And if it was impossible to separate the illegal ballots from the legal ballots, the court could have then ordered the state legislators to either re-do the election in those states or choose the electors themselves.
Like I said in a previous reply, Mr. Carrington’s arguments would be right on the mark IF the subject weren’t the FEDERAL election for the one nationwide elected office in the land.