This is an interesting article on originalism and federalism with respect to elections.
The Constitution is sometimes called in to support the rights of states, but is more often called in to support the rights of individuals within those states. When the Constitution favors the individuals, the result is further control being taken from the states and handed over to the federal government.
The Georgia case is interesting. Supposedly it was against the law for the state courts and executive branch to change election laws. Supposedly the legislature would have done something, but by law they were prevented from convening to oppose the judicial and executive actions.
However, if the state judiciary was in violation of Georgia law and they were in cahoots with the Georgia executive, then it would seem that the legislature could have convened regardless and stopped the crime.
That the legislature did nothing suggests that they believed two things: 1) It would have been bad optics to oppose the election rule changes and hurt their future political careers, and 2) The Republicans were still going to win regardless so there was no need to act.
I still believe that the Supreme Court should have taken the case. Even if they ruled in favor of allowing the election results to stand, it would have made it more clear that the long term effect of Bush v Gore favors the Dems since the ruling in that case is now considered by many to be equivalent to the Dredd Scott ruling.
Thanks for the ping. The constitution seems clear to me. It’s up to the Legislature not the Governor, SOS, or the state courts. Those entities had no authority to circumvent the legislature’s requirements.