If the contested states were thrown out, then the required number of EV would no longer be 270. Biden would have still had a majority of EV cast, so he would have still been elected.
That is definitely NOT a certainty. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 does not specify that at all, and IF the Rethugs control the House, they can say that majority has not been met. There are also serious questions whether the ECA can even constitutionally bind future Congresses.
here is a massive constitutional law article on all this
http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Siegel-BOOK.pdf
snip
As interpreted by this Article, the ECA is a coherent enactment. The ECA’s coherence does not mean that it is a complete response to the problems of Congress’s electoral vote counting. The ECA’s sponsors said it was. Nevertheless, should Congress reject an electoral vote, the ECA does not address whether, or under what circumstances, the number of electoral votes required for the President’s election is reduced. To be elected President, the Constitution requires a candidate to receive “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” The provision was adopted to prevent states from hamstringing the federal government by simply not participating in the presidential election. When Congress rejects an electoral vote, the effect that decision has on the denominator that determines whether a candidate has more than fifty percent of the electoral vote is an entirely open issue, and congressional precedent is split.
Should the number always remain the same? Should it always be reduced pro tanto? Should the effect on the number vary with the reason for Congress’s exclusion? Senate leaders raised this issue while the ECA was under consideration, and they gave differing answers to the question. Good arguments were raised on all sides of the question. Perhaps because the diversity of strongly held views might imperil the delicate web of compromises supporting the ECA, Congress avoided addressing the issue in the ECA. If a future Congress were to exclude votes under the ECA, it is possible that one chamber of Congress would conclude that the leading candidate did not receive a majority of the relevant pool of electoral votes, while the other chamber will conclude that he or she did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, that election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the 12th Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote-winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote-winners as vice president.
The Rethugs may well try (if they lose the EC in 2024 and if they control the US House) to block enough EV's (there are multiple ways at both state and the US House level to do this) to toss the POTUS election into the House, where they would have the 26 (or more) State delegations needed to make Trump POTUS. The same applies for VPOTUS and the Senate. They also MAY (as you stated) try to have Rethug-controlled state legislatures in a Rethug controlled state simply give the slate of EV's to the Rethug, if the Dem wins the state's popular vote.
= new reply since forum marked as read
