Electors and Elections (2016/20)

I did not read the 100+ page opinion (it was not really simply ideological -- each judge on the panel was nominated by a different POTUS), the "it's moot" dissent only a few pages. Did listen to the oral argument and the result does sound reasonable. But, as discussed here, it is far from clear and there are complications. The lower court opinion went the other way.

I would really try to avoid deciding the merits if possible. Will SCOTUS now decide? The issue of faithless electors might matter more in this day and age; if Trump won two of the three Midwest states that decided things, this thing could have came down to one or two electors. And, then there is the "show us your tax returns" primary challenge that some liberals are worried about. (Will it invite tit for tat? make a national popular vote compact harder?) The state constitutional claim looks like it deserves more attention.

ETA: There was a move to make this an individual rights case, the electors having a right to vote, but independent electors were never really a thing. This made the 2016 "we need to stop Trump" fantasy just that in practice. There is some argument there but the text also seems to leave open broad power to the states (and Congress) to restrain as well. Plus, good policy would so hold. So, if possible, I would let political branches handle it.