<<
It seems the Supreme court is looking at some case law which says you can't change the rules after the election.
<<

Actually, it has nothing to do with "case law". Rather, the questions dealt with are:

1. Whether post-election judicial limitations on the
discretion granted by the legislature to state executive
officials to certify election results, and/or post-election
judicially created standards for the determination of controversies
concerning the appointment of presidential
electors, violate the Due Process Clause or 3 U.S.C. § 5,
which requires that a State resolve controversies relating
to the appointment of electors under “laws enacted prior
to” election day.


2. Whether the state court’s decision, which cannot
be reconciled with state statutes enacted before the election
was held, is inconsistent with Article II, Section 1,
clause 2 of the Constitution, which provides that electors
shall be appointed by each State “in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct.”


Bush tried to get a third question in that dealt with the arbitrary nature the
ballots are being counted and that in it of itself, violated the equal protection and due process clauses. The court felt that this one was a stretch since it really boils down to issues of fact - not law. The first two questions are easily indentifiable as issues of federal law and/or constitutional law - not fact. Also, the third issue deals with areas that are rights within a state. States have the right to prescribe the method with which votes are counted. Obviously, the means have to be reasonable. Still, states have descretion. Remember federalism. The supreme court - and all federal courts don't like to trample on state's toes.


If it were only as easy as "just changing the rules after an election..."


Hope this clears things up....

< JVP >