[Torie]

The courts would have done nothing. It would have been litigated after the fact, maybe, not before. No court would issue an instant injunction when the president said there was a national emergency, and he needed to move to save lives, and if some rogue federal trial judge held otherwise, he would hve been instantly overturned, and the injuction dissolved. That happened in St. Louis when some federal judge held that the polls should be kept open for an extra three hours in St. Louis in 2000. That ruling was overturned by an appellate court in one hour.

[kingu]

That happened in St. Louis when some federal judge held that the polls should be kept open for an extra three hours in St. Louis in 2000.

Well, first, you have a federal judge interfering in a state conducted election - injunctions don't tend to survive appeal in those cases. Instead you're talking about the president overriding state sovereignty on a guess. A prediction. Something that could easily have been wrong. Civil rights are not dissolved without a fight, and you would have seen the biggest fight ever.

Insurrection Act? That was the most likely vehicle, and you'd have to prove malfeasance on the part of local authorities. The district court in New Orleans would have overruled the action resulting in an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court. With Rehnquist out of action. A split court would have deferred to state authorities.

To do anything else would be to invalidate the electoral process. A president could declare an emergency anywhere, at virtually any time, and no court would want to be responsible for it. They would caution authorities in the affected area to take every possible measure to ensure the safety of their citizens and encourage them to invite and work with all federal assistance available, but they would not turn over states to the federal government. I think you know this.