- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That would be why SCOTUS would consider taking it up. The problem is the lack of an adequate remedy if it's just PA that fucked up. Trump needs three states, not just PA. And the argument (for PA) would be that the law actually violated the equal protection clause, much as Florida's choices in 2000 did in Bush v. Gore. Now, the argument in that case is that PA's scheme violates specifically the Pennsylvania Constitution. State courts generally prefer to decide their cases based on state constitutions, because of a case called Michigan v. Long which essentially says that SCOTUS more or less keeps its hands off state court decisions based on state constitutions, on the "adequate and independent state grounds" doctrine. So long as you don't tread on their turf, the federal constitution, they leave it alone. Unless they actually find that there are federal constitutional grounds, this is how state courts insulate their decisions from federal review.
When the case is as incredibly political as this is, though, they can and will step in, e.g. Bush v. Gore as an example. A major difference here is they'd have to step in in three different states for it to make any difference. This seems unlikely.
