They quote actual lawyers here. I'm not saying this is going to happen but it's an interesting article nonetheless. The Hill opinion piece where 2 lawyers say the Dems should simply refuse to certify the Trump electors citing Article 3 of the 14th amendment that he's ineligible to be POTUS because of Jan 6.
The idea is not I think this would actually happen, and if it did, the Republicans would simply refuse to agree to it. But I do like their argument. The 2nd and 3rd part are quite clear, Congress not the SC has the right to count electoral votes, and the process is VERY clearly spelled out and was even reinforced in 2022 specifically because Trump tried to steal the 2020 election.
https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/
First the majority’s suggestion that there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment is what lawyers call dicta. Dicta are the musings of an opinion that are not required to decide the case. The holding that Section 3 is not self-executing may be an alternate holding, but thoughts about the kind of implementing statute required are plain dicta. Dicta are not precedential. The four dissenters strenuously objected to this part of the opinion as overreach to decide a question not presented. This overreach is a power grab which Congress is not required to credit.
Second, counting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.
Third, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists. The Electoral Count Act was first enacted in 1887 and later amended and restated in 2022. That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as to the validity of Electoral College votes.
The act specifies two grounds for objection to an electoral vote: If the electors from a state were not lawfully certified or if the vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words “not regularly given.” Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States.
To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.