That has nothing to do with partisanship.

> Also the constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to conduct federal elections

This is literally not true. Please tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is given this authority. You won't find it, which is why all the contortions around federal authority are political in nature and not legal.

The states run 100% of 100% of the elections within their states, including the elections of the electors in the Electoral College who ultimately elect the President.

The entire opinion (and the misconception that it produces, and you relay here) is a handwavy way to say: it sure would be politically inconvenient if the legal structure actually produced this outcome. If it were a legal decision, the political considerations would be irrelevant: the law says what the law says.

> "Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns... state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer"

That's a political consideration, not a legal one.

> "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up."

That's a political consideration, not a legal one.