U.S. Code » Title 3 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

3 U.S.C. § 5

Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 3 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—(1)Certification.—Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.(2)Form of certificate.—Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall—(A) set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;(B) bear the seal of the State; and(C) contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.(b)Transmission.—It shall be the duty of the executive of each State—(1) to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and(2) to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.(c)Treatment of Certificate as Conclusive.—For purposes of section 15:(1)In general.—(A)Certificate issued by executive.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors issued pursuant to subsection (a)(1) shall be treated as conclusive in Congress with respect to the determination of electors appointed by the State.(B)Certificates issued pursuant to court orders.—Any certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors required to be issued or revised by any State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors shall replace and supersede any other certificates submitted pursuant to this section.(2)Determination of federal questions.—The determination of Federal courts on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States with respect to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall be conclusive in Congress.(d)Venue and Expedited Procedure.—(1)In general.—Any action brought by an aggrieved candidate for President or Vice President that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States with respect to the issuance of the certification required under section (a)(1), or the transmission of such certification as required under subsection (b), shall be subject to the following rules:(A)Venue.—The venue for such action shall be the Federal district court of the Federal district in which the State capital is located.(B) 3-judge panel.—Such action shall be heard by a district court of three judges, convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code, except that—(i) the court shall be comprised of two judges of the circuit court of appeals in which the district court lies and one judge of the district court in which the action is brought; and(ii) section 2284(b)(2) of such title shall not apply.(C)Expedited procedure.—It shall be the duty of the court to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action, consistent with all other relevant deadlines established by this chapter and the laws of the United States.(D)Appeals.—Notwithstanding section 1253 of title 28, United States Code, the final judgment of the panel convened under subparagraph (B) may be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court, by writ of certiorari granted upon petition of any party to the case, on an expedited basis, so that a final order of the court on remand of the Supreme Court may occur on or before the day before the time fixed for the meeting of electors.(2)Rule of construction.—This subsection—(A) shall be construed solely to establish venue and expedited procedures in any action brought by an aggrieved candidate for President or Vice President as specified in this subsection that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States; and(B) shall not be construed to preempt or displace any existing State or Federal cause of action.(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673; Pub. L. 117–328, div. P, title I, § 104(a), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5234.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.”

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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). · cites it 33× “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). · cites it 6× “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). · cites it 7× “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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 3× “Pennsylvania has not yet certified its election results.”
Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “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.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
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.