You said " And if those State legislators believe that there was cheating "
They can't decide to select a new slate of electors based on their belief that there may have been cheating.
Yes... they can. It's the whole point of the ****'n thread.
They would have to change the state
The state legislators may have decided to use popular vote to decide... but it's STILL THE STATE LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE THE FINAL SAY. THEY ARE THE DECIDING FACTOR.
They passed state laws that bind the elector to the popular vote. They can break the law that the state legislatures passed because they believe they should? They can't override the law. That's not to say that something gumming up the works in the certification of the election results couldn't possibly result in them getting to vote on a slate of electors.
Oh, any attempt would break LOADS of state laws. But whether it was constitutionally permissible is unclear.
What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.
But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.
The legal theory that would allow state legislatures to go rogue and appoint electors without regard for the popular vote rests on an argument made by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, for himself and two other justices. On this view, a legislature is unconstrained in its power to set the manner by which electors are selected—meaning that even after an election, the legislature could ignore the results and select a different slate altogether. A recent
opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that Rehnquist’s argument may again be on the rise.
But advocates for this view need to recognize that between Bush v. Gore and today, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided that presidential electors are not actually “electors” but instead are bound to the people’s vote. That principle that cabins elector discretion must also constrain legislatures—at least if the country is to avoid an abomination that the Framers expressly rejected.
The Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument.
www.lawfareblog.com