Contested elections are at the state level. If a state lets it drag on for too long, there are one of two possibilities:
There is nothing for a court to do. The Electors will either be there or not; the Electoral College will Constitutionally function with or without them.
In Florida in 2000, the election hadn't progressed to the contested part because the results weren't certified when SCOTUS stepped in to stop the unconstitutional partial recount. The Florida legislature was ready to intervene with option #1 above when the court stopped the recount.
-PJ
“SCOTUS stepped in to stop the unconstitutional partial recount”
Which is going to happen again this time around only on steroids. I will be surprised if there is only one state where SCOTUS will need to step in and stop some Florida-type shenanigans.
>>The state legislatures step in and asserts its Article II Section 1 power and selects the Electors directly.
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all have R senates and houses.
Correct although the language in the 12th is mushy.
In 1876, a few states sent more than one set of electoral votes.
Remember, the ruling in Bush v. Gore was, first, that using different standards for counting votes in different counties was unconstitutional, by a 7-2 vote; and then, that there was no time to fix the process before the Electoral College voted, so Florida would have to certify the results it had as of that point. (You might recall that the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court had kept extending the deadline and extending the deadline.) That ruling was 5-4, and it gave Florida (and thus the presidency) to George W. Bush by 537 votes.