This makes no sense; the jury convicts, not the judge; further, in *ALL* criminal trials the defendant has the right to a jury trial. (6th Amendment)
2) It was also assumed that somebody would create a corrupt congressional district, to guarantee the election of a scoundrel or real criminal to congress. For this reason, both the House and the Senate can both refuse to seat elected candidates, and they can boot them out of the body, stripping them of their seat.
This sounds more reasonable.
3) Beyond that, the assumption is that the people are smart enough to choose their own representatives, based on their own judgment, as long as the candidate is qualified. And federal judges are loathe to second guess the public about who they want in office.
Except, say, when allowing the infinite-recounts to proceed.
Even the founding fathers had faith that humanities scoundrels would come through in a pinch to bias elections. There had been a whole litany of such abuses in Britain even before the founding of the republic.
And they were right, more than they knew. The innovative scoundrels in America didn’t miss a beat in trying to cheat in every way imaginable. The US didn’t have a secret, or “Australian” ballot until 1884-’91, which meant that everybody knew how you voted as soon as you did. If you voted “the right way”, you might get a glass of beer; “the wrong way”, punched in the nose. It was “festive”, to say the least.
More to the point, the only way a jury matters is if you want to *really* convict somebody. Otherwise the conviction would be quickly overturned on appeal. After the election. A judge might order a jury of a dozen drunk friends of his, etc. ad nauseum.
There could be a thick book on the election cheats devised over the years. No stone left unturned.