One of the things about Bush v Gore is that Bush specifically made an argument on the part of Article II Sect. 1, Clause 2 about state legislatures determining presidential election that was agreed with.
But as we indicated in our remand of the earlier case, in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail. And there is no basis for reading the Florida statutes as requiring the counting of improperly marked ballots, as an examination of the Florida Supreme Court’s textual analysis shows.
The scope and nature of the remedy ordered by the Florida Supreme Court jeopardizes the “legislative wish” to take advantage of the safe harbor provided by 3 U.S.C. § 5. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, at 6. December 12, 2000, is the last date for a final determination of the Florida electors that will satisfy §5.
Surely when the Florida Legislature empowered the courts of the State to grant “appropriate” relief, it must have meant relief that would have become final by the cut-off date of 3 U.S.C. § 5.
Most election related cases would have to do with civil rights, finances, and redistricting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_elections_case_law
There are some cases about elections, like California changing from a closed primary to blanket primary.
One of the things about Bush v Gore is that Bush specifically made an argument on the part of Article II Sect. 1, Clause 2 about state legislatures determining presidential election that was agreed with.
Here is the important part of (the concurring opinion)[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZC.html] (towards the end of the brief):