I like this sort of legal trivia an nitpicking. I find it interesting. So, I checked out the article.
Sadly, as interesting as it is, it's a legal fail.
First, the objections to the electors are mostly based on a "dual office" objection. Many states have provisions that an individual may not simultaneously hold more than one state office. e.g. They can't be the state Attorney General and be the state Secretary of State. The claim is that therefore they cannot be both Attorney General and an elector. It is unclear to me that "elector" is an office. Maybe some states have specific definitions of exactly what constitutes an "office", and elector qualifies, but in the absence of such a definition, I would assume that elector isn't an office.
The other claim is that electors do not live in the districts they represent. I suppose this must be related to some provision in state law, because there's nothing in federal law about that.
But, suppose that it were found that the electors really were unqualified based on the laws of their states. What would be the remedy? Invalidate that state's electoral vote? Surely not. The remedy would be to order the states to appoint a substitute elector in accordance with their own state law, and they would appoint a new Trump elector.
There is one relevant aspect of this lawsuit. It shows how fragile our electoral system is. This antiquated notion of the electoral college creates opportunities for political mischief that could be quite dangerous. The truth is that over 200 million people are eligible to vote, but 538 people elect a president. Those 538 people have the freedom in some cases to vote for whomever they wish. In other cases, they are constrained by state law, which means there are opportunities for meddling. Meanwhile, there is a congressional role which, in theory, could invalidate some of those 538 votes. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
