TLDR: The Projection Racket (Part 2)

Given articles like the following:

which are extremely alarmist (although in our current day and age, its difficult to tell what alarmism is going to end up reflecting reality and what alarmism is being used to sell papers), it would seem like gerrymandering, elections procedures, representation and voting is once again a focus.

Most of these issues can be resolved through adopting the CAA with the most alarming (state legislatures ignoring the popular vote to send their own electors) being address through Congressionally passed laws.

Article I | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.
Section 4 of the Article 1 of the US constitution seems to be at play in the case and relates to “Independent State Legislature Doctrine,” the legal doctrine that seems to quickly be the new litmus test for judicial and election contesting conservatives.
The CAA obviously address gerrymandering (which would be much more difficult to implement with smaller districts with less people) but in creating a larger house, the ability to pass legislation that would corral and address national elections (the overlooked aspect of article 1, section 4) should be greater (depending on the makeup of the senate).
Either way it would appear that the outcome of this case (Moore v Harper) seems to be remaking the case for the adoption of the CAA.