2 U.S.C. § 7

Time of election

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Jesus Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012).
Jesus Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “Because the system in Louisiana was “concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress,” the Louisiana statute conflicted with 2 U.S.C. § 7 , and was pre- empted. Id. at 73 .”
Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 (D.D.C. 1982). · cites it 6× “This objection is grounded in 2 U.S.C. § 7 (1976), which establishes “[t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year,” as the day for congressional elections.”
Jim Bognet v. Sec'y Commonwealth of PA, 980 F.3d 336 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 7 . -8- Much like the Elections Clause, the “Electors Clause” of the U.”
In Re Initiative Petition No. 317, Etc., 648 P.2d 1207 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 7× “1, § 4, of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. § 7 , because it would result in changing the time for holding a congressional election other than as provided for in 2 U.”
Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). · cites it 2× “Title 2 U. S. C. §7 was originally enacted in 1872, and now provides that “[t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives…”
Angela Craig v. Steve Simon, 980 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 2 U.S.C. § 7 . Another section authorizes the States to prescribe “the time for holding elections in any State .”
Ass'n of Cmty. Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) v. James R. Edgar, in His Off. Capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, 56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 7 . Such a regulation is not necessary to preserve the government of the United States or even to prevent an abuse of power by state governments.”
Michael Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 114 F.4th 634 (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 7 . The second provides that electors of the President and Vice President are to “be appointed, in each State, on election day, in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day.”
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 3× “Georgia argued that 2 U.S.C. § 7 “absolutely require[d] that the general election be held on November 2.”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. v. Bomer, 61 F. Supp. 2d 600 (S.D. Tex. 1999). · cites it 8× “1 Plain *602 tiffs claim that these statutes conflict with federal voting laws in that the Texas statutes permit Texas voters to cast their ballots before the federal election day as delineated by the United' States Constitution and Title 2 U.S.C. § 7 (1999). The Constitution…”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. Fred Decker Alberta Bryant Diana Evans Charles Sauvie v. Phil Keisling, Sec'y of State Opinion of Oregon, 259 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 7 . 9 . 2 U.S.C. § 1 . 10 . 3 U.”
Voting Integrity Proj., Inc. v. Bomer, 199 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 7 provides that the “Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States .”
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.