Right on. Some deep-dive links to support this:
pp 13-14:
D. Enforcing Certification Statutes When Officials Fail to Carry Out Their Duties
In the event that election officials refuse to certify or delay certifying results, every state certification system includes an enforcement mechanism that generally falls into one of two categories: statutory remedies specific to the election certification context, or general mandamus remedies that apply to ministerial duties such as certifying an election. Additionally, states may also choose to impose criminal penalties on officials who refuse to properly certify results.
Some states with specific statutory remedies create a cause of action that a voter or candidate can bring in court against an official who refuses to certify the proper election results. In New Mexico, for example, any state trial court may “upon petition of any voter . . . issue a writ of mandamus to the county canvassing board to compel it to . . . certify the election results.”63 Other states, such as Michigan, allow the state election board to take over certification at the local level in the event that a local official refuses to certify …
In states without an explicit statutory enforcement mechanism, plaintiffs can petition for a writ of mandamus when officials refuse to certify the proper results.65 Generally speaking, a writ of mandamus “compel[s] a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.”66 In the election certification contest, a writ of mandamus would thus order a local official to certify the winner of an election pursuant to their state’s election certification framework.67 …
As with any dispute that implicates separate branches of government, states may confront a situation in which officials who refuse to certify an election subsequently choose to defy a court order directing them to certify. While modern elections have fortunately not seen this sort of defiance, Derek T. Muller’s recent article, Election Subversion and the Writ of Mandamus,71 sets forth several state statutory mechanisms that would compel performance in such an instance, including fines that stem from courts’ contempt power;72 provisions that allow rogue officials to be removed from office;73 or provisions analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70 that allow courts to appoint another person to carry out the court-ordered certification.74
The Muller citation in the last paragraph above is:
Derek T. Muller, Election Subversion and the Writ of Mandamus, 65 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 327 (2023).
pp 349-350 (pp 24-25 of PDF)
III. DEFYING MANDAMUS
Mandamus is a court order that directs an election official to do something. What happens if an election official still refuses and defies mandamus?
At common law, two remedies were readily available. First, the court could order the attachment of property to compel the offending officer to comply.142 Second, the court could use its contempt power to compel a recalcitrant official to comply.143 Courts today draw on these traditional remedies and have at least four mechanisms to compel performance: fines, imprisonment, replacing the official, or substituting another official to perform the act.144 The first two trace back to the court’s contempt power, but the last two are newer developments.
Pp 350-353 of Muller’s article detail a 2022 case in Otero County, New Mexico where the local canvassing board initially refused to certify a primary election but was later forced via a writ of mandamus to certify or resign their posts. Cliffs Notes of the affair below:
EDIT: And, oh yeah - the guy pictured in the cowboy hat?
