OK folks, just putting this up for you to pick apart.
Let's suppose that the Supreme Court agrees to decide on the "Texas challenge".
They already seem to be receptive to it, as they have requested submissions by the four defendant states.
Consider:
It's not just Mr. Trump who stands to win or lose by this Court decision, it's the Supreme Court itself. After all, haven't a significant number of democrat-communists made noise to the effect that they're going to "pack" the Court with additional "justices", and as such ought to be taken at their word?
If I was one of the 5-member conservative majority on The Court, I'd consider this case not only from the viewpoint of protecting the Constitution, but as protecting the integrity of my own job, as well.
So...
Let's suppose even more, that the Court rules for Texas.
What next?
If the Court decides that the defendant states' elections were not Constitutionally conducted, and that as a result of same their [formerly chosen] electors are not valid, then the states will have to "re-select" electors in a manner as prescribed by the Constitution.
Short of conducting an entirely new election (which might again become suspect), that leaves them with the option of turning to the respective state legislatures to select a slate of electors.
It's an understatement to suggest that the Republican majorities of these legislatures will then fall under EXTREME pressure, to say the least.
What "choices" might they make?
I predict there may be at least two that no other member of this forum has considered.
So... here are what I see as the possible outcomes:
1. The legislatures could appoint a slate of electors for Mr. Trump. All of them.
2. The legislatures could "kick the can" and appoint a slate of electors for biden. It seems ridiculous that they might, considering that the U.S. Supreme Court itself had just ruled that the elections that selected electors for biden were "unconstitutional", but it would be their choice. And that "choice" would then comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
3. The legislatures could deadlock, and send NO electors. In this case, the Electoral College would vote without them.
And now the two possibilities no one else in the country has yet proposed:
4. The state legislatures, trying to find some way to assuage the 50% or so of voters who actually DID vote for biden, decide to "split the vote". In so doing, they would assign half of their electors to vote for biden, and the other half to vote for Mr. Trump. This "compromise" would be presented under the rationale that since the election was so close, their actions were being undertaken "as if it were a tie". The legislature would be entirely within their Constitutional duty to decide as such.
5. The state legislatures, again trying to arrive at a "Solomonic" decision, decide to assign electors in a manner similar to the pathways taken by Nebraska and Maine. That is, they will look to each congressional district in their state, and assign 1 elector to either Mr. Trump or Mr. biden in accordance with which man won in each district. The two remaining electors (representing Senators) would be awarded to the candidate that won the majority OF ELECTORS in that state.
Again, this would be entirely Constitutional and under the prerogative of each legislature to do, if they wanted. Again, a "Nebraska compromise" would take SOME of the pressure off the legislatures to make a decision that could be viewed as equitable to all the [legitimate] voters in the state.
So... there are numerous ways for the legislatures to "split the baby in half".
This assumes, of course, that events progress that far.
But if they do...
... and if you start hearing about legislatures "splitting the electors"...
... remember from whom you heard it first...!
