3 U.S.C. § 5
There is authorized to be appropriated to the General Services Administration, the sum of $750,000 for planning, design, construction, and costs incidental thereto, including the cost of initial furnishings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). “2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. § 5 , and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.”
Ned L. Siegel, Georgette Sosa Douglas v. Theresa Lepore, Charles E. Burton, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000). “Among other things, we then said: Both the Constitution of the United States and 3 U.S.C. § 5 indicate that states have the primary authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential Electors and to resolve most controversies concerning the appointment of Electors.”
Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2000). “3 U.S.C. § 5 (1994) (emphasis added). Consistent with the above provisions of federal law and with longstanding principles of state law, the Florida Legislature in 1951 enacted the Florida Election Code, contained in chapters 97-106, Florida Statutes (2000), which sets forth…”
Jill Stein v. Christopher Thomas, 672 F. App'x 565 (6th Cir. 2016). “See 3 U.S.C. § 5 . On December 2, 2016, Stein and Michigan voter Louis Novak filed the instant federal lawsuit against Michigan election officials in the Eastern District of Michigan asserting that Michigan’s waiting period law would make it impossible for the recount to be…”
Stein v. Cortés, 223 F. Supp. 3d 423 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “Pennsylvania has not yet certified its election results.”
Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). “We consider these statutes cognizant of the federal grant of authority derived from the United States Constitution and derived from 3 U.S.C. § 5 (1994), entitled "Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors.”
Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000). “We granted certiorari on two of the questions presented by petitioner: whether the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, by effectively changing the State’s elector appointment procedures after election day, violated the Due Process Clause or 3 U. S. C. § 5 , and whether the…”
James Carson v. Steve Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020). “2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 , and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses”).”
Ne. Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012). “See 3 U.S.C. § 5 ; O.R.C. § 3515.041. Beyond these administrative burdens, amici CRACC movants suggest that the district court’s remedy opens the door to more poll-worker error, which will result in the dilution of proper votes via the counting of ineligible votes.”
United States v. Larry Brock, 94 F.4th 39 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “3 U.S.C. § 5 . Congress has afforded such procedures deference by treating them as a “safe harbor” for election disputes: If, prior to election day, a state passes laws providing for the “final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any…”
Muhammad Abdurrahman v. Mark Dayton, 903 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2018). “Abdurrahman asserted that the Minnesota Act violated Article II and the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution and 3 U.S.C. § 5 by limiting his power to vote for whom he wished and by preventing him from counting, certifying, and transmitting his vote.”
Rios v. Blackwell, 345 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ohio 2004). “Absent such showing, neither candidate could be harmed irreparably if the recount, if such were to occur, went beyond December 7, 2004, the date for appointment of Ohio’s electors.”
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.