Replies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act

The law was enacted ten years after the disputed 1876 presidential election, in which several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock for weeks.[2] Close elections in 1880 and 1884 followed, and again raised the possibility that with no formally established counting procedure in place partisans in Congress might use the counting process to force a desired result.[3] After years of discussion, Congress passed the Act in 1887 and has followed the Act’s procedures since then.[4]

The Act aims to minimize Congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[3][4] The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these “safe harbor” standards and the state’s governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that “final” determination “shall govern.”[5][6] The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act’s procedures.[7] Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not “regularly given.”[7][8]

The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[7] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[8] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[9] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law’s timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as “very confused, almost unintelligible.”[10]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law “invites misinterpretation,” observing that it is “turgid and repetitious” and that “[i]ts central provisions seem contradictory.”[11]:543

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President opens the electoral certificates in his capacity as President of the Senate. The Act clarifies the Vice President’s limited role in the count.[3][7][8] Both houses can overrule the Vice President’s decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor’s certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party’s — or his own — defeat. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Joe Biden all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.

I do not think that the disputed states all met the safe harbor provisions mentioned above so may be subject to dispute.

Its wikipedia but it sounds about right.