Not really. At the baseline, the allocation of the state's electorate votes is entirely at the state's discretion — that's the "Article II, state legislatures should overturn their votes" argument from the MAGA crowd got so popular. In effect, Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality once a state certifies their votes pursuant to it.
Outside of Article II, there are very few proscriptions on how a state conducts its voting, as I explain here (it's kind of long, sorry). You can fit an election fraud challenge into the Equal Protection proscription. However, since Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is properly on the party challenging fraud. Generally speaking, the presumption-burden shifting framework is how most of law works. If those people did indeed watch fraud occur, they should have no issue meeting this burden. The fact that they're unable to meet the burden isn't indicative of a flaw in the justice system, but rather a flaw in what they perceived.
Not really. At the baseline, the allocation of the state's electorate votes is entirely at the state's discretion — that's the "Article II, state legislatures should overturn their votes" argument from the MAGA crowd got so popular. In effect, Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality once a state certifies their votes pursuant to it.
Outside of Article II, there are very few proscriptions on how a state conducts its voting, as I explain here (it's kind of long, sorry). You can fit an election fraud challenge into the Equal Protection proscription. However, since Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is properly on the party challenging fraud. Generally speaking, the presumption-burden shifting framework is how most of law works. If those people did indeed watch fraud occur, they should have no issue meeting this burden. The fact that they're unable to meet the burden isn't indicative of a flaw in the justice system, but rather a flaw in what they perceived.