FAQ: "Is this stealing an election?"
SHORT ANSWER: Nope. It's the constitutional answer to an attempt to do just that. Having Elector selection revert to a state's legislature is following the constitutional flow considering the fundamental discrediting of these specific elections.
In addition, that state legislature can choose whoever it wants for Electors, perhaps even splitting between the candidates' slates or appointing a crop of people plucked off the street. There is no guarantee a given state will go to a given candidate in this approach. It will be left to a body whose constituent members were elected--by and large--in contests that didn't show cheating of the sheer scope we are seeing this year in the POTUS race.
LONG ANSWER: Nope. It's the constitutional answer to an attempt to do just that. Having Elector selection revert to a state's legislature is following the constitutional flow, and that legislature can choose whoever it wants, perhaps even splitting between the candidates' slates or appointing a crop of people plucked off the street.
State legislatures have plenary power in running elections (Bush v Gore). It's only because all states have established popular elections to determine Presidential Electors that we even have the situation we do. A state could use a big giant game of musical chairs to select Electors if they so chose.
The corruption and fraud in states like PA and MI, and specific areas in other states, serve to invalidate by any reasonable standard those elections in the areas affected (PA and MI--entire states; AZ is more localized). The only "equal protection" way to deal with the situation is to invalidate ALL votes in those specific geographical areas.
This sounds extreme, but a Presidential election is fundamentally different than virtually all other elections in this country. We the populace don't elect the actual candidate, but rather a slate of Electors put up by that candidate/party. It is INDIRECT, and one set up at the option of a given state. Constitutionally, state legislatures could select Electors themselves, and without regard to what anyone running for the office says.
Some states, like Florida, have provisions in their law that if a POTUS popular vote is not settled by the deadline (December something), the legislature can simply choose the Electors themselves. If such statutes exist in the states affected by the current fraud effort--call it a "coup" or "insurrection," for both are accurate--then the answer is obvious and exactly what I said.
BUT, I WOULD ARGUE that such a statute would not be necessary when the election is as fundamentally spoiled as in MI and PA, at least. It would be unconscionable to uphold the results as legal and binding, to say the very least, particularly if the winning side is the side that instigated this massive cheating. The default then, would be to disregard the popular vote and turn to the original authority on the matter--the state legislatures.
In cases where the fraud is more contained--e.g., AZ--it might simply be a matter of invalidating the votes in those areas, and allowing the remaining popular vote to stand. One could make Equal Protection arguments about that, though again, the indirect nature of Presidential elections drop that down a peg. If such geographically targeted mass invalidations can't be done, then given the scope of the 2020 cheating (and its association with the ongoing "Resistance" and BLM insurrection), the most conscionable action would be statewide invalidation and reversion of Elector selection to the state legislature.
Now, perhaps a less "nuclear" means will be found to arrive at an accurate resolution (and yes, given the particular cheating efforts here, that means Trump winning). Nonetheless, this is a matter where the answer is obvious. And it's right there in the Constitution.
==========
Newt Gingrich on a similar track: https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/1324546780311162881
