2 U.S.C. § 1
Time for election of Senators
At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof for the term commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997).
Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). “Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court * Under 2 U. S. C. §§ 1 and 7, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an even-numbered year “is established” as the date for federal congressional elections.”
Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2010). “C Senator Burris offers a different reason — one based on federal law — why plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits of their claim.”
Lamone v. Capozzi, 912 A.2d 674 (Md. 2006). “” In Foster , Louisiana voters brought an action against state officials, alleging that the state’s “open primary” system was in conflict with 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 27 and 7. 28 522 U.S. at 68-69 , 118 S.”
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga. 1993). “First, Defendants assert that federal law allows exceptions to the formula set forth in 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7 in certain circumstances, and that Georgia’s run-off election was such an exception.”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. v. Phil Keisling, 259 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001). “2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1 . The manner of appointment is now by popular election but was formerly by the legislatures of some states.”
Love v. Foster, 90 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 1996). “Senators in 2 U.S.C. § 1 : At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States…”
William Tedards, Jr. v. Doug Ducey, 951 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2020). “See 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7. Therefore, Arizona’s primaries were held on August 28, 2018.”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. v. Bomer, 199 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000). “Unlike traditional “absentee” voting statutes, the Texas Early Voting statutes do not require the voter to give any reason to vote early; the voter has the unrestricted right to vote early.”
Judge v. Quinn, 623 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “See 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7. Senator Burris argues that these provisions apply to Senate vacancy elections.”
Love v. Foster, 147 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1998). “We reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were “entitled to a declaratory judgment that Louisiana’s election scheme conflicts with 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7 to the extent that the Louisiana scheme authorizes a contested election for members of Congress to be decided in the open primary…”
Daggett v. Kimmelman, 617 F. Supp. 1269 (D.N.J. 1985). “2 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (a).”
PG Publ'g Co. v. Aichele, 902 F. Supp. 2d 724 (W.D. Pa. 2012). “2 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1 ; 25 Pa. Stat.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.