I preface my response with my position: #US Americans devoted to "democracy" should take electoral responsibility for the composition and acts of the state government where they reside; politics is local is sovereign; misplaced appeals to the supremacy clause d/b/a acts of congress (ex interstate commerce) or acts of executive authority to remedy civil rights complaints rarely succeed in review of articles of the constitution: incorporation doctrine, NB. christ Ginsburg for the majority. This is the salient, general lesson of historical judicial resistance to "broad" rulings of federal authority and "narrow" rulings of bill of rights, ostensibly prohibiting contravention of those amdts by any state. Also, never forget 10th amdt, Art. I, sec.4, or when and why or why not congress enacts authorities "implied," IOW, "not delegated" to congress.

-- Learn to Code independent and dependent variables--26 NOV, 8 DEC @ SCOFL "undervotes", 9 DEC @ SCOTUS, 12 Dec FL statutory deadline, FEDERAL "safe harbor" formula. (excerpts from Bush v. Gore)

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. [...] The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another

this statement: In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that re-counting ballots in different ways violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause is conclusory, functionally incomplete.

(SCOTUS Q1) That statement omits review of Art II, sec. 2, specifically standing order enacted by CONGRESS, 3 U. S. C. §5, because it's a run-on sentence which definitively remedies defective execution of STATE "election code": when the code fails to produce a "bona fide" slate of electors (bound to the "bona fide winner"; see Chiafo v Washington, 2020), § 5 prescribes graceful degradation of controversy to minimum STATE "election code" a/o appointment date minus 6 days ("safe harbor").

(SCOTUS Q2) That statement omits the STATE's "election code" which limits "equal protection" (due process) to the fixed date 12 DEC rather than mandatory obligations and uniform duties, ie. ballot validation, complete count; SCOFL prescribed paranormal activity to contested county polling stations

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots.

as if to implement "equal protection" of ballots the state did not and could not provide by 12 DEC.

JUSTICE BREYER'S proposed remedy--remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18--contemplates action in violation of the Florida Election Code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.168(8) (Supp. 2001).

dissent

lt hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3 U. S. C. § 5, did not impose any affirmative duties upon the States that their governmental branches could "violate." [...] In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent-and are therefore legal votes under state law-but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 110. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow [?!] when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 124. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined.

circular reasoning of the problem as the remedy (recursion)
--
Q. How do the extra 2 electors for each state not violate the Equal Protection Clause?
A1. See Q1, Q2, Art. I, Sec. 2 re: electors. A2. Per Curiam decisions are by definition not binding instructions, final orders. However informed by the merit case re: error of law, SCOFL reversed its recount order 11 Dec. A3. Apportionment of electors is not the question presented by either Bush v, or DNC v. However, 2/state est'd de minimis STATE representation in federal gov; browse founders.archives.gov artifacts.

Wait for Census2020 Litigation Vortex from HELL in 2021.