[T-Bird45]

First off - IANAL, merely a reasonably well-informed citizen so bear with me on any errors on law or precedent. I particularly note you make no comment as to how Bush v. Gore in 2000 bears on this where SCOTUS did intervene in a state-level political question.

I next take note that the doors you leave open in your closing are effectively non-optimal when viewed towards potential success. So it’s just bend over & kiss it all goodbye???

[Thilly Thailor]

That's a fair point. Bush v. Gore was an equal protection claim that called into question the differing laws that applied to the various FL counties. The basic point was that FL's rules left voters in its several counties in unconstitutionally disparate conditions.

I see this as a different issue - rampant cheating by, for example, the Democrat machines in Phlly and Detroit. Not the unfairness of the rules themselves as in Bush v. Gore, but rather a failure of the State legislatures of PA and MI to (ultimately) step in an apply the only Constitutional remedy (appointing a slate of electors to the EC). Since they didn't do that, it's a "political question." And then again, I don't think SCOTUS wants another Bush v. Gore and are looking for a way to punt.

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.