potato head wrote:
"Even if this is the case, it will be in the courts for weeks or months."
NO.
The electoral college meets on December 14 or 15 (not sure which date this time around).
Any state that does not present its electors by that date will be IGNORED in the final count as per the requirements of the Constitution.
So... if a state is to "have its vote count" in the presidential contest, it must present those electors by the date above.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly demand that electors be chosen by "an election of the people". It leaves how they'll be chosen up to the individual state legislatures (governors have no say - ZERO).
If the election results aren't known by mid-December, the state legislatures are going to have to decide -- either:
- stop the counting and determine (by a vote OF the legislature) which candidate the state will send electors for
or
- do nothing, and LOSE its electors altogether (see above).
I'll predict that if one or more states fails to send electors to the Electoral College by December 15, that the Supreme Court IS NOT going to intervene on behalf of those states to "resurrect" the "dead electors". Those states will "lose their voice" in the election. This is in accordance to the Constitution.
However... if one or more states fails to present electors, I predict there will then be a Constitutional battle over what number of the remaining, voting electors will "constitute a majority" by which the presidency can be won.
If, for example, California (with 55 electors) fails to certify its electors in time, that would leave a total of 480 electors left.
Would "a majority" then consist of 241 (50% of the 480 voting electors + 1), or would it still be 270?
THAT is "the question" that the Supreme Court will be asked to decide.
But one way or the other, the presidential election is not going to "drag on" for months.
That's how I see it, and that's how I'm callin' it.