It's a question of when the federal courts can enforce the US Constitution.
Our government was structured around the concept of a separation of powers. Basically meaning that the legislative branch has its bailiwick, the executive branch has its bailiwick, and the judicial branch has its bailiwick. And it was intended that no branch would be able to undermine or usurp the powers of another.
Out of this separation of powers came the political question doctrine. Basically it says that, for example, the courts can't just step in and declare a piece of legislation unconstitutional before it's even been enacted by Congress or signed into law by the President.
That would undermine the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
So the courts would have to wait until Congress passed the legislation and the President signed it into law.
In this instance, it would be premature for the courts to involve themselves since the other mechanisms for dealing with a situation as this have yet to be played out.
For example, states may state the qualifications as to who may appear on their state ballots. However that is entirely a state question as Article II grants sole power to the states when it comes to appointing electors.
Next there are the electors, who by the Constitution are the only ones responsible for casting votes for President and Vice President. Electors may take Article II qualifications into consideration when casting their votes on December 15th.
And then there is Congress, who by statute may challenge any of the electoral votes.
So in other words, the political question doctrine says that the courts can't enforce the Constitution until such time as these other mechanisms have played out.
For a more detailed insight into this, I recommend reading the motion to dismiss filed by the RNC and John McCain in Robinson v. Bowen.
Read page 6 starting at paragraph 15 and up to page 8 at paragraph 22.
Well we could always look to the 10th Amendment and say that anything not delineated in the Constitution would be left up to the States. In that case would it be the National Guard that would be the “enforcing authority” to ensure a free and fair election?
Similar to the oath the military takes - to defend and uphold the Constitution?
I’m just throwing this out there — I have no clue if this would be correct or not...
The FBI and the Federal Courts would enforce it as well, wouldn’t they? Similar to the investigation being conducted in Chicago and the FBI raids all over the country regarding ACORN?