9th bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, - say the denial of a right to a fair election, anything less then a fair election erodes ones voting rights. THe USSC arguments ere all based on the soverignty of the state legislatures in presidential election.
10th gaurantees state sovereignty - maybe here is where the right to withdraw certification lies and demand some sort of redress. I wouldn't bet the mortgage on these approaches.
The question with the 9-10 approach is "then what?" If a state was denied a fair election due to bad-faith actors, then what? If a state can revoke certification, then what?
Part of the answer to "then what?" is the procedure in 20. If it is found that certification was based on falsified ballots, falsified counts of legitimate ballots, counts of illegitimately received ballots, etc., then we enter "failed to qualify" territory.
The question then becomes, must these failures of qualifications be discovered before the safe-harbor date for the Electoral College, be discovered before the Congressional count, or be discovered before the oath of office to be valid for the 20th amendment? If so, it rewards cover-up by any means by the very same bad-faith actors.
If it can be retroactively applied via the 20th amendment, then both Biden and Harris can be removed and Congress can appoint an interim President while a new President is chosen via a means established by Congress.
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi will become acting President while Congress dithers over this. On the other hand, Pelosi would have to resign from Congress in order to succeed the Presidency. On the other other hand, Congress could retain Pelosi as Speaker if they act quickly to name a different acting President via the 20th amendment, declaring that the rules of succession don't apply in this case.
-PJ