Actually, even if this in state court...
(this comment is preliminary, I do not have time to fully research this)
there may be quite a bit more jurisdiction that may be commonly supposed
not only are states the primary sovereign governments in USA, but there is always the 10th Amendment recognizing this governing principle. And, more specifically, states start out as controlling the ballots and the time, place, and manner of their voting. There have been Congressional intrusions into this general state power, including the civil rights act of 1964 etc. So, a question would be whether Congress has taken away state jurisdiction in this case, or not. Offhand (only), I can’t think of any such Congressional action (but I will happily stand corrected, if anyone has one.)
Furthermore, the election of presidents is a two-stage process. People do NOT vote for the president. They vote instead for STATE ELECTORS to the Electoral College. How such electors are selected and the rules by which their activities are governed are generally meant to be matters of state authority (again absent something to contrary?). This was another constitutional recognition of the superior sovereignty of the states over that of the limited federal government.
Again I have to apologize I haven’t time to research all this and will stand corrected if anyone has better specific info.
Anyway, offhand it would appear that the proper state court would have jurisdiction. Now then, whether the judge wishes to rule and how, remains an open question. We’ve seen a couple dozen (?) instances where (mostly federal) courts have refused to carry out their constitutional function in re the Obama fiasco. If she wants to duck, she can, we’ve seen that in spades.
One thing she could do is simply order that state of Illinois Electors may not vote for candidate X or Y in the Electoral College. Then, the electors could vote for whomever else they choose (or maybe she might instruct that they vote for the next=highest=vote=getting candidate in her state?) Or she could...what? The specific remedies would not seem to have been well developed given the paucity of non-qualified candidates (until recently) running for the office?
I am open on this, and don’t have much of any agenda right now. Indeed, I need to sign off for awhile to do some work here so....have at it!
All the best,
fhc
Well, all 50 states have chosen to adopt voting as the method of appointment of Electors, but it's not required. Any Legislature that so chooses can appoint Electors directly, by coin toss, by a rugby match between Democrats and Republicans, or by reading the entrails of an owl.