In reply to your comment on option 1, see #44.
In reply to your comment on option 4, federal courts do not allow their decisions to be rendered moot due to state procedural deadlines. Federal ‘Tolling’ provisions in effect put states in suspension until a federal order has been entered, and then the time clock starts clicking on the next court day following the order.
Further to option 4, federal courts hearing election cases understand the importance of time and will accommodate high profile cases to an expedited schedule.
In reply to your comment on option 5, there are many federal court rulings upholding serious substantial candidates for federal office. These cases hinge on noy allowing state laws to foreclose on a serious candidate’s options and on not disenfranchising a large number of voters who voted for a candidate for federal office. In this case there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of voters who would be disenfranchised.
There is no such automatic federal "tolling" rule that I am aware of. Can you cite me the statute or rule you think is applicable?
Of course, even without a rule, a federal judge could impose such a tolling by entering an order to that effect in this case, but no one has asked her to do so yet. (In fact, no one has even asked the federal judge yet to allow inspection of the voter rolls on an expedited basis; the only thing she's been asked to do so far is to enjoin the destruction of ballots and voter rolls, and she hasn't even ruled on that yet.) Moreover, McDaniel hasn't even joined the federal lawsuit yet; until and unless he does, he can't ask the federal court to do anything.
Further to option 4, federal courts hearing election cases understand the importance of time and will accommodate high profile cases to an expedited schedule.
They can and do, no question. But no one has asked this judge yet for any kind of relief like you are suggesting.
In reply to your comment on option 5, there are many federal court rulings upholding serious substantial candidates for federal office. These cases hinge on noy allowing state laws to foreclose on a serious candidate’s options and on not disenfranchising a large number of voters who voted for a candidate for federal office. In this case there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of voters who would be disenfranchised.
I don't think those federal decisions are applicable here, but we can just agree to disagree on that point.
I suspect that all this talk about federal court is going to be moot. If I had to guess (and it's just a guess), McDaniel is going to stay out of federal court because he doesn't have the litigation budget for a two-front war, and his best bet is the state election challenge.