Mods: I put this in GQ rather than Elections because there (I believe) is a factual answer to this question, and, even though the impetus for this question is a voter ID issue, the real answer doesn’t depend on the issue.
The Court can hold in contempt any defendant who is charged with carrying out the Court’s order, up to and including the first named defendant: Governor Abbott.
The scope of federal contempt power is pretty vague in American law. Here’s a general rundown.
Courts have held states in contempt before, requiring a daily fine until the state complies. I don’t think the Supreme Court has weighed in on whether that’s kosher. But in this case, there would be no need to do so, since the Governor is a defendant and has the power to order the relief the Court requires.
Well in one case it included having the national guard force schools to allow students to attend, if the state sends police to block the students. Presumably they could arrest the governor and anyone else complicit (in this case, whoever is in charge of elections, district election supervisors) for contempt. Remember the uproar over the state (Wisconsin?) getting a court order and trying to order police to bring in legislators avoid a roll-call?
If the governor is determined to go to a full-metal-jacket showdown, it depends who has the biggest guns. Then, the question is who thinks they would win a PR battle - the governor’s party for enforcing a voter ID law and becoming martyrs for it, or the feds for enforcing the higher court rules. The courts of course rely on the executive branches to enforce their orders. I don’t doubt the feds could walk in and arrest anyone, and have the manpower that nobody would fight… because ultimately, if they were really stupid and it ended up in a gunfight where federal agents were killed, it would be the end… and the federal courts would pass sentence.
I would speculate that in this particular case, a federal court could rule that if Texas does not comply with court rulings, any electors chosen by Texas are ineligible to cast votes in the election.
One, if a court says it’s illegal (and it has) then it’s not a lawful election of electors.
Two, what exactly is the mechanism you’re envisioning where the Constitution can overrule the court system? Does a case work its way up through the court system and get all the way to the Supreme Court - and then a sepulchral voice issues forth from the National Archive Building saying “NO, YOU MORTALS, I SHALL HAVE THE FINAL WORD!”
Depends who’s doing the blocking. The point of any escalation is - you either better to be able to win the (a) armed stand-off or (b) subsequent court battles or (c) battle of public opinion. That last is the critical one.
If district election officers and the head of elections are served with court orders and ignore them, “my governor told me not to” won’t hack it in court. OTOH, A becomes president although B won Texas and hence would have had a slight majority otherwise in the electoral college… "I’m reminded of the line in “Nixon” where he’s told to drop his challenge of voter fraud in Chicago - “Kennedy stole it from us fair and square…” - that would be a PR nightmare that the president would have to consider. Ordering a new vote? Might not be enough time, especially in the face of active hostility from the election office. (IIRC there’s a timeline in the constitution)
I don’t know about that. In the clusterfuck that was Bush v Gore one thing that came out was that the selection of electors still had to pass the courts’ interpretation of the law.
Ultimately I guess Congress by choosing what slate of electors to count if any. Re: Bush v Gore from above what would have happened if Florida gave a middle finger to their own Supreme Court and said, “You can’t change the law. F You and we are sending in the slate of Bush electors no matter what the recounts say.”