What is the legal standard for determining whether a state court's interpretation of state election law exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review and violates the Elections and Electors Clauses?

The Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution vest the power to set federal election rules in the legislature of each s tate. Exercising that power, the Pennsylvania General Assembly unambiguously directed that election officials “shall not” count an individual ’s provisional ballot if they “timely received” a mail ballot cast by that person . 25 Pa. Stat. § Turning that requirement on its head, a 4 –3 majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decreed that election officials must count provisional ballots cast by individuals whose mail ballots were timely received but were defective for some other reason. The questions presented are: 1. What is the legal standard for determining whether a state court’s in terpret ation of state election law exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review and therefore violates the Elections and Electors Clauses ? 2. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review and thereby usurp the General Assembly’s plenary authority to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections, U.S. Const. art. I., § 4, cl. 1., and broad power to “direct ” the “Manner” for appointing electors for President and Vice President, id. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ?