3 U.S.C. § 6
There is further authorized to be appropriated to the General Services Administration, annually, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of section 3.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “7 3 U.S.C. § 6 . The presidential electors assemble "in the chamber of the Indiana house of representatives on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December as provided by 3 U.”
United States v. Larry Brock, 94 F.4th 39 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “3 U.S.C. § 6 . The electors of each state meet on “the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” to vote by ballot for President and Vice-President at a location determined by state law.”
Muhammad Abdurrahman v. Mark Dayton, 903 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2018). “After the election, Governor Dayton submitted a certificate of ascertainment to the Archivist of the United States under 3 U.S.C. § 6 naming Abdurrahman as one of Minnesota's presidential electors.”
Gelineau v. Johnson, 904 F. Supp. 2d 742 (W.D. Mich. 2012). “Section 6 provides that a state’s executive must certify the state’s determination regarding any elector controversy, 3 U.S.C. § 6 , and Section 15 confirms that the state’s determination is not to be second-guessed.”
Robert N. Harris v. Florida Elections Comm'n, 235 F.3d 578 (11th Cir. 2000). “” The Governor’s duty to transmit the certificate of ascertainment is a duty based on federal law governed by 3 U.S.C. § 6 . For a court to order the Governor to act under 3 U.”
Shoosmith Bros. v. Hopewell Nursing Home, L.L.C., 78 Va. Cir. 427 (Hopewell Cir. Ct. 2009). “1985) (citing 3 U.S.C. § 6 ; other citations omitted). The principle of default is akin to waiver.”
Stein v. Thomas, 222 F. Supp. 3d 539 (E.D. Mich. 2016). “at 13-14; 3 U.S.C. § 6 . Without completion of the recount, any controversy regarding which candidate’s electors had been elected in the November 8 election might ultimately be decided by Congress, rather than conclusively determined by Michigan.”
Bowyer v. Ducey (D. Ariz. 2020). “); see also 3 U.S.C. § 6 . 12 In their Complaint and the accompanying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 13 (“TRO”) filed on December 2, Plaintiffs “contest” the election and ask this Court to compel 14 the Governor to “de-certify” these results.”
United States v. Montgomery (D.D.C. 2021). “certified” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 6 . Id. The Act further specifies which votes Congress should count if “more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received,” and when votes given by “successors or substitutes” may be counted.”
Gohmert v. Pence (E.D. Tex. 2021). “See 3 U.S.C. § 6 . That act is performed solely by the Arizona Governor, who is a “third party not before the court.”
Trump v. The Wisconsin Elections Comm'n (E.D. Wis. 2020). “3 U.S.C. §6 . The certificate of “determination” notifies the U.”
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.