TL;DR at the bottom
I've done extensive research about what happens if there's a fraudulent election and I came across this article.
In this article, i want to point out two links:
University of California-Irvine School of Law Professor Rick Hasen:
“It is very rare for courts to declare a revote, and these do not look like the circumstances where courts would declare one,” Hasen said in a statement to LawNewz.com. “I have never seen anyone try to redo an election based upon the release of information which influenced voters.”
He goes on to say:
He then explained, “If there were evidence that the Russians or someone else interfered with either the voting itself or with the vote counting, then that could be a conceivable basis for a remedy.
Another one:
Law Professor John Banzhaf:
“Any reasonable reading of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution – which provides in considerable detail for the election of the president – would strongly suggest that, once Congress has determined “the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes,” that Congress cannot then, based upon a simple majority vote, provide for a do-over second election,” Banzhaf said.
Banzhaf agreed with Prof. Hasen’s position, saying the circumstances alleged in the WaPo article seemingly do not justify the extraordinary remedy of a second election.
Key part here:
At the end of the day, both experts seemed to agree that additional evidence would need to be put forward that proves the Russians actually infiltrated voting machines or altered the vote count before any talk of an election do-over should be seriously entertained in a court of law.
To your original question, I will reference a link in that article:
The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections particularly Presidential contests is essential to a free and democratic society. See United States v. Classic, supra. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means, particularly in those states where no statutory procedures are available for contesting general elections.[18] Finally, federal courts *968 in the past have not hesitated to take jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the validity of local elections and, where necessary, order new elections.[19] The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.
Yes, federal courts are an appropriate place to handle these disputes under ordinary circumstances. However, I don't believe that they can handle something of this magnitude. Constitutional law experts seemed to back peddle when they said that there couldn't ever be a remedy. I seriously don't believe that anyone will have any idea of what the fuck to do if they actually blow the lid off of this fraudulent election.
I can't imagine a scenario where SCOTUS isn't invovled.
TL;DR at the bottom
I've done extensive research about what happens if there's a fraudulent election and I came across this article.
In this article, i want to point out two links:
University of California-Irvine School of Law Professor Rick Hasen:
“It is very rare for courts to declare a revote, and these do not look like the circumstances where courts would declare one,” Hasen said in a statement to LawNewz.com. “I have never seen anyone try to redo an election based upon the release of information which influenced voters.”
He goes on to say:
He then explained, “If there were evidence that the Russians or someone else interfered with either the voting itself or with the vote counting, then that could be a conceivable basis for a remedy.
Another one:
Law Professor John Banzhaf:
“Any reasonable reading of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution – which provides in considerable detail for the election of the president – would strongly suggest that, once Congress has determined “the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes,” that Congress cannot then, based upon a simple majority vote, provide for a do-over second election,” Banzhaf said.
Banzhaf agreed with Prof. Hasen’s position, saying the circumstances alleged in the WaPo article seemingly do not justify the extraordinary remedy of a second election.
Key part here:
At the end of the day, both experts seemed to agree that additional evidence would need to be put forward that proves the Russians actually infiltrated voting machines or altered the vote count before any talk of an election do-over should be seriously entertained in a court of law.
To your original question, I will reference a link in that article:
The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections particularly Presidential contests is essential to a free and democratic society. See United States v. Classic, supra. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means, particularly in those states where no statutory procedures are available for contesting general elections.[18] Finally, federal courts *968 in the past have not hesitated to take jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the validity of local elections and, where necessary, order new elections.[19] The fact that a national election might require judicial intervention, concomitantly implicating the interests of the entire nation, if anything, militates in favor of interpreting the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts to include challenges to Presidential elections.
Yes, federal courts are an appropriate place to handle these disputes under ordinary circumstances. However, I don't believe that they can handle something of this magnitude.