That doesn't make a lot of sense. Bush v Gore explicitly states that it is not a precedent. Any other decision on the merits of a new case would not have to worry about that.
"Also, the “one man, one vote” thing would really run counter to overturning the deadline."
The issue was that partial recounts violated equal protection, but that there wasn't enough time to complete a full recount. It's not that a deadline or changing a deadline would somehow violate equal protection.
It precisely is a deadline.
And it doesn’t matter if you say “This isn’t a precedent” when it very clearly is. ALL Scotus rulings are.