I have some experience with that. My second nomination in 2004 was halted due to an injunction from somebody who felt that he had been wrongly excluded from being able to participate in the nominations. We had to reschedule it after a court had a chance to look at the details of the case, and it decided that his case was not valid, so I know how that works. The bigger problem was that we had to figure out whether it was actually a new contest or the same contest continuing, for expenditure reasons. That was a lively story, which you may recall from the recesses of your memory. You were the CEO at the time.
What strikes me about what you suggested about cease and desist orders, or indeed any action, is that the Chief Electoral Officer can act only if the Chief Electoral Officer is actually aware of what's happening. The after-the-fact reporting mechanism this statute contemplates for writ period events would seem to preclude that possibility. Effectively, public oversight would be blind during that period and until after the electoral event was actually over.