I can't think of a single comparable case in which an official would have been held in contempt. The order didn't contain a specific deadline to comply and even the administration's motion asking the court to direct Husted to act didn't seek any sanctions against him. Based on thirty years of experience, this is playing out precisely as I would expect. Husted takes advantage of the lack of specificity in the order. The administration calls him out with a motion. The judge sets deadlines for Husted to file a written response and sets a date for a hearing on which he can consider factual and legal arguments as to what and when the state needs to do to comply with his order. The state appeals the underlying order and, after being called out by the administration's motion, rescinds its original directive (which still doesn't put the state in compliance with the court's order) and formally asks for a stay pending the appeal (which has been put on an expedited schedule) and the judge gives the administration a deadline to respond to the stay request. The hearing, as far as I know, will go on as scheduled next week and at that time the judge will decide on a schedule for compliance with his order. Hopefully it will be a short schedule. If the judge doesn't stay his order, then the next move will either be for Husted to issue instructions to the local boards to set a uniform schedule of voting hours for the 3 days preceding election day or he may decide to ask the court of appeals to stay the district court order.
There is a lot of legal maneuvering left. But contempt isn't in the cards unless the court orders a specific deadline and without a stay in hand from the appeals court, Husted ignores it, something which i doubt is going to happen.
= new reply since forum marked as read