2 U.S.C. § 8
DEFINITIONS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Busbee v. Smith
Busbee v. Smith (1982)
“Our examination of the legislative history of section 7 and its companion provision, 2 U.S.C. § 8 (1976), suggests, moreover, that a postponement of the general election in the unusual situation presented here would not violate Congress’ intent in the enactment of section 7.”
Foster v. Love (1997)
“2 When the federal statutes speak of “the election” of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder (subject only to the possibility of a later run-off, see 2 U. S. C. § 8 ). 3…”
Personhuballah v. Alcorn (2016)
“2 U.S.C. § 8 . Section 8 of Title 2 of the United States Code provides that “[t]he time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by…”
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller (1993)
“Because the manner by which Georgia conducts elections is to require the winner to receive a majority of the vote, when none of the candidates accomplished this, the state-proscribed manner of electing Senators required that the general election be continued with a run-off on a…”
Fox v. Paterson (2010)
“The Governor contends that Article I, § 4, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, and a federal statute, at 2 U.S.C. § 8 (a), provide that the times, places and manner of holding elections for representatives shall be prescribed by the various state legislatures, and that…”
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Robert Taft, Governor of Ohio (2004)
“” Congress, in turn, has enacted 2 U.S.C. § 8 , indicating that states have the authority to determine the time of elections, providing: “The time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy…”
Love v. Foster (1996)
“2 U.S.C. § 8 . 2 In adopting this scheme, Congress precluded a state from holding an election in which members of Congress could be elected before the federal election date.”
STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. Republican Party (2011)
“240(1) had intended to abandon this long-settled practice when it provided for special elections to fill United States House of Representatives vacancies, it seems reasonable to conclude that it would have done so explicitlyparticularly given that the self-nominating "free for…”
Millsaps v. Thompson (2001)
“To support their position, the plaintiffs finely parse Foster’s language and characterize the Supreme Court as drawing a distinction between the actions that must take place on federal election day to constitute an “election” and the “final act of selection” of an officeholder,…”
Judge v. Quinn (2009)
“§ 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 .”
In Re Initiative Petition No. 317, Etc. (1982)
“[8] The vice of this argument lies in the fact that there would be no vacancies on November 3rd, for they have been filled under the legislative redistricting plan. It also refutes or is contrary to the "proceedings begun" doctrine as discussed supra.”
Baber v. Dunlap (2018)
“Run-off elections also impose an appreciable burden on the voting public, as is reflected by the fact that run-off elections commonly involve a significant drop-off in public participation, as conceded by Dr.”
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.