There was no amendment. They just went ahead and did it. Same with how the PA legislature handed over selection of electors in 1938 to the Sec. of State. Its all just a bunch of backhanded deals in PA.
That's my point though. If the state's supreme court decides those backhanded deals are all above board and totally ok, despite everyone knowing they're not, who do you go to for redress? The Supreme Court is just as likely to avoid this case as to take it up.
Not if those particular amendments and deals violate Amendments to the Constitution i.e. Equal Rights protections. This can be a broad argument pertaining to violations in many states, both within, and especially pertaining to federal election.
You can actually prove Equal Rights violations on the basis of voting anomaly and statistics alone based on a previous John Roberts ruling about redistricting which he upheld because they proved a mostly-Hispanic area was actually not-underserved by a Republican redistricting using probabilistic maths. If the maths show a major probability of fraud then it can be struck down by the SC because no definite 'proof' must be established in such an argument.
There was no amendment. They just went ahead and did it. Same with how the PA legislature handed over selection of electors in 1938 to the Sec. of State. Its all just a bunch of backhanded deals in PA.
That's my point though. If the state's supreme court decides those backhanded deals are all above board and totally ok, despite everyone knowing they're not, who do you go to for redress? The Supreme Court is just as likely to avoid this case as to take it up.
Not if those particular amendments and deals violate Amendments to the Constitution i.e. Equal Rights protections. This can be a broad argument pertaining to violations in many states, both within, and especially pertaining to federal election.
You can actually prove Equal Rights violations on the basis of voting anomaly and statistics alone based on a previous John Roberts ruling about redistricting which he upheld because they proved a mostly-Hispanic area was actually not-underserved by a Republican redistricting using probabilistic maths. If the maths show a major probability of fraud then it can be struck down by the SC because no definite 'proof' must be established in such an argument.