[AuH2ORepublican]

Sorry, but legal scholars, both conservative and liberal, have pretty much agreed on this one for a couple of centuries now. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about state courts being tge judge of the election of House members, whereas there is a specific, unambiguoug clause in Article I that provides that each House is the judge of the election of its members. James Madison et al couldn’t have made it any clearer had they drawn a picture. I know that it sounds counterintuitive that the House gets to decide election contests involving House members, but that’s what the Framers wanted and wrote into the Constitution. If you want to give state courts the last word, you should ask your Congressmen to ibtroduce a constitutional amendment, but, frankly, there are la couple of dozen other things that I would prefer to change about the Constitution first.

[FreeReign]

Sorry, but legal scholars, both conservative and liberal, have pretty much agreed on this one for a couple of centuries now. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about state courts being tge judge of the election of House members, whereas there is a specific, unambiguoug clause in Article I that provides that each House is the judge of the election of its members.

No, I believe you are confusing several issues. Let's look at your previous post.

First you incorrectly say that the House has the final say if a member meets the Constitutional requirements...

"It is undisputed that the House is the ultimate word on the winner of an election to the House, as well as on whether a member meets the constitutional qualifications for office, and that such determinations are made by a simple majority vote;"

And then you correctly say that the Supreme Court has the final say if a member meets the constitutional requirements....

"...the only limit that the Supreme Court has placed on Congress is..."

So you do admit that the SC has the final say on the constitutional requirements...and of course they do.

As I said in my previous post, the Constitution says that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People". The House has to follow those rule when they judge the election and if they don't the final arbiter on constitutional requirements -- as you pointed out -- is of course the SC.