The cases that went in front of them wasn't to determine the elections, it was uphold states voting laws that were blatently being violated by Govenors and Secretarys of State making election law that had no power to interfere with state election law. I mean this was a simple reading of the Constitution to see who has the power to make election law; the state legislatures, which SCOTUS ignored. SCOTUS are cowards, living in fear of Roberts. However Kavenaugh and Barrett I feel are totally worthless picks.
A better precedent for the author of this piece would have been the infamous U.S. Senate election in New Jersey in 2002. In that fiasco, the incumbent Democrat (Robert Torricelli) was mired in a political corruption scandal and seemed likely to lose in the general election to his Republican challenger. So the Democratic Party in New Jersey (which happened to control the state legislature and the governor's office at the time) decided to replace him on the ballot with the previously-retired fossil Frank Lautenberg after the ballot deadline established under state law had passed.
The Republican Party filed suit in Federal court to overturn this, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. Antonin Scalia wrote the Court's explanation for this refusal. He said the move may have been totally illegal under New Jersey law, but because it didn't involve any violation of Federal election laws or civil/voting rights protections under Federal law, there was no reason for a Federal court to get involved in this process.
His message to the people of New Jersey was simple: "If these are the kinds of @ssholes you want in your state government, then either YOU deal with them or just shut the hell up."