What steps would Congress need to lawfully change the date of a federal election?
Executive summary
Congressional and presidential Election Day is a creature of federal statute: changing it requires Congress to pass a new law that alters the existing statutory dates controlling congressional elections and the appointment of presidential electors, followed by the usual presentment to the President or a veto override; courts and state officials have limited, situational authority but cannot unilaterally move the federal date set by Congress [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Congress’s exclusive statutory authority — what the law already says
The timing of federal elections and the deadlines for appointing presidential electors are set by federal statutes that Congress enacted in the 19th and 20th centuries, and multiple legal analyses make clear that “only Congress may change” those dates by passing a new statute; the Congressional Research Service explicitly states that Congress directs electors’ vote deadlines and only Congress may change them by enacting a law [2] [3] [5]. CRS and Library of Congress summaries reiterate that neither the President nor other federal officials have unilateral authority to alter the date Congress set for federal elections [1] [6].
2. The concrete legislative steps Congress must take
Practically, Congress would have to introduce and pass legislation in both the House and Senate that amends the statutes fixing Election Day for congressional offices (2 U.S.C. provisions) and presidential elector appointment timing (3 U.S.C. provisions), specify any transitional rules (e.g., nomination and ballot deadlines, filing windows, and the Electors’ meeting date), and send the bill to the President for signature or prepare to override a veto—there is no special fast-track mechanism embedded in the statutes for changing the date, so normal bicameral passage and presentment procedures apply [2] [1] [3]. Historical practice shows Congress has legislated uniform dates before (the 1845 law and subsequent statutes), demonstrating the legislative route is the established, lawful path [7].
3. Constitutional and downstream timing complications
Changing Election Day is not purely a calendar tweak; it interacts with other constitutional and statutory provisions—among them the Twentieth Amendment’s term start dates and the statutory deadlines governing when electors must cast their votes—so any law would need to reconcile shifted election dates with fixed dates for electoral college action and transition of terms to avoid gaps or overlaps in office-holding (CRS analysis notes the three-step presidential selection process and dates Congress already controls) [2] [3]. The Twentieth Amendment itself changed term start dates but did not displace Congress’s statutory control over Election Day, so lawmakers must draft carefully to align the whole schedule [8].
4. What other actors can and cannot do — states, courts, governors
States routinely move primary and special-election dates for local reasons—by statute, court order, or executive action—so state officials can and do change state-run election timing in narrow contexts (examples from 2020 and 2022 primaries show state-level postponements and court-ordered changes) [9] [10]. However, those state moves do not displace the federal date for choosing presidential electors or for regularly scheduled congressional elections where Congress has set a uniform date; courts have sometimes extended hours or provided remedies in exceptional circumstances but do not substitute for congressional statutory change [2] [3].
5. Political and practical realities that shape the legal route
Legally simple does not mean politically easy: any bill to change the date would need to grapple with ballot printing, nomination and filing deadlines, absentee and early-voting windows, campaign finance reporting schedules, and state administrative capacity—practical constraints that CRS and election-law observers stress when urging Congress to act with sufficient lead time if it intends to change election mechanics [11] [1]. Public claims that a President can unilaterally postpone federal elections are incorrect; fact-checkers and CRS emphasize Congress’s exclusive role and caution against relying on executive action [4] [2].
6. Where disputes are likely and how courts may enter
If Congress enacted a change close to an election or if state officials tried to act in a vacuum, litigation would almost certainly follow; courts have in past emergencies weighed in on scheduling and equal-protection claims, and the judiciary is likeliest to intervene where procedural disruptions meaningfully burden voters’ rights, but courts would not rewrite the statutory allocation that gives Congress the principal authority to set election dates [2] [3].