Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution does two things. Its first clause, known as the Elections Clause, lets each state’s legislature set the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, while allowing Congress to override those state rules whenever it chooses. Its second clause requires Congress to meet at least once a year. The tug-of-war between state authority and federal override built into the first clause has driven some of the most consequential election law cases in American history.
The Text
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Clause 2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.1Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated – Article I Section 4
What States Get to Control
The Elections Clause gives state legislatures broad authority over how congressional elections are actually run. States set voter registration deadlines, decide whether to offer absentee or early voting, design ballots, pick polling locations, and determine how votes are counted. That is why election procedures look so different from one state to the next.
The Supreme Court read the word “manner” broadly in Smiley v. Holm (1932), calling the clause a grant of authority to enact “a complete code for congressional elections.” That code covers registration, supervision of voting, fraud prevention, vote counting, the duties of election officials, and the publication of results.2Justia Law. Smiley v. Holm – 285 U.S. 355 (1932) Later decisions confirmed that drawing congressional district lines also falls within the clause.
How Congress Can Override State Rules
The second half of Clause 1 gives Congress what the Supreme Court has called “paramount” authority over federal elections. Congress “may at any time by Law make or alter” state election regulations.1Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated – Article I Section 4 States write the default rules; Congress can displace them whenever it wants. The Framers built this in as a safety valve against states manipulating election rules to entrench politicians or suppress voters.
Congress has used the power repeatedly:
- Federal law fixes Election Day for House and Senate races as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 2 U.S. Code 7 – Time of Election
- The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned discriminatory practices like literacy tests and established federal oversight of election changes in jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination.4National Archives. Voting Rights Act (1965)
- The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires every state to offer voter registration at motor vehicle offices, through mail-in applications, and at certain public assistance agencies.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC Chapter 205 – National Voter Registration
- The Help America Vote Act of 2002, passed after the disputed 2000 presidential election, set minimum standards for voting systems and required states to offer provisional ballots to voters whose eligibility is questioned at the polls.
When Congress legislates under the Elections Clause, its rules supersede any conflicting state law. The Court reinforced this in Foster v. Love (1997), striking down a Louisiana system that effectively decided congressional races on a date other than the federally mandated Election Day. States enjoy wide latitude only as long as Congress chooses not to act.
The Exception for Choosing Senators
The clause contains one carve-out from Congress’s override power: it cannot regulate “the Places of chusing Senators.” This mattered in 1787, when state legislatures picked senators and dictating where a legislature had to sit would have intruded on state sovereignty. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, moved Senate elections to a popular vote, and constitutional scholars now treat the exception as a relic with no modern legal effect.6Library of Congress. Historical Background on Elections Clause
What Counts as “the Legislature”
Some of the sharpest disputes over the Elections Clause have turned on a single word. Does “Legislature” mean only the elected body of state lawmakers, or does it include governors, state courts, voter initiatives, and the state constitution? The Supreme Court has answered in stages, and the stakes are enormous: the narrower the reading, the more unchecked power state lawmakers hold over federal elections.
Governors Keep Their Veto
Smiley v. Holm settled the first piece of this in 1932. When a state legislature writes election rules under the Elections Clause, it acts through the state’s ordinary lawmaking process. A governor can veto an election law like any other bill. The word “Legislature” does not give lawmakers a channel to bypass the governor.2Justia Law. Smiley v. Holm – 285 U.S. 355 (1932)
Voters Can Create Independent Redistricting Commissions
Arizona voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 that stripped the state legislature of redistricting authority and gave it to an independent commission. The legislature sued, arguing the Elections Clause reserved that power for it alone.
The Supreme Court disagreed in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015). “Legislature” encompasses the full lawmaking authority of a state, including the people acting through ballot initiatives. Blocking voter-created commissions would undermine the constitutional principle that governmental power flows from the people.7Justia Law. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission – 576 U.S. 787 (2015) Several states now use independent commissions to draw congressional maps.
State Courts Can Review Election Laws
The most aggressive reading of “Legislature” came through the Independent State Legislature Theory, which held that state lawmakers had near-absolute authority over federal election rules, free from review by state courts or constraints from state constitutions. Taken to its logical end, the theory would have meant a state legislature could gerrymander districts or restrict voting access, and no state institution could stop it.
The Supreme Court rejected that reading in Moore v. Harper (2023). North Carolina’s state courts had struck down a congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the state constitution, and Republican legislators argued the Elections Clause shielded their work from any state court review. The majority held that the Elections Clause “does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” State legislatures writing election rules remain subject to the ordinary checks and balances of state government, including judicial review under the state constitution.8Supreme Court of the United States. Moore v. Harper
The ruling drew a line in the other direction too. State courts “may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures.” Federal courts can step in if a state court crosses from interpretation into effectively rewriting an election law. The Court deliberately left the exact boundary undefined, calling such questions “complex and context specific,” which guarantees the issue will return.8Supreme Court of the United States. Moore v. Harper
Why the Clause Doesn’t Stop Partisan Gerrymandering
The Elections Clause covers redistricting, but it does not give federal courts a tool to police partisan map-drawing. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are “political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” Challengers had argued that extreme partisan gerrymanders abused the power granted by the Elections Clause itself. The Court was unpersuaded, concluding that Article I provides no judicially enforceable limit on political considerations in redistricting.
The result is an unusual landscape. State courts can review maps under state constitutions, as Moore confirmed. Independent commissions can draw them instead of legislatures, as Arizona established. But federal courts will not declare a partisan gerrymander unconstitutional under federal law. Where a state constitution lacks anti-gerrymandering protections and the legislature draws its own maps, the remaining check is Congress’s override power, which Congress has not exercised for partisan gerrymandering.
The Annual Meeting Requirement
Clause 2 requires Congress to “assemble at least once in every Year.” The original text set the default meeting date as the first Monday in December, which produced a long gap between Election Day in November and the seating of the new Congress more than a year later. Defeated members kept legislating for months after losing their seats.
The 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933, moved the start of each congressional session to noon on January 3, unless Congress sets a different date by law. That change superseded the original December date and shortened the lame-duck period.9Constitution Annotated. Twentieth Amendment Section 2 – Date When Congress Shall Meet