Which U.S. states have statutory authority allowing governors to postpone elections during emergencies, and how have they used it?
Executive summary
A patchwork of state laws gives governors varying authority to postpone elections in an emergency: at least 45 states have statutes addressing election-day emergencies broadly [1], while a narrower set—about 12 states—have explicit statutes authorizing suspension, delay, or postponement of elections by executive action [2]. Those powers were tested in 2020 when multiple governors and other state officials used emergency authority (or other mechanisms) to move primaries during the COVID-19 pandemic, and tensions with federal election timing and courts persist [3] [4].
1. The statutory landscape is fragmented and overlapping
Federal law sets the uniform date for presidential elections, but states retain authority over “times, places, and manner” of elections and many have emergency provisions that can be read to allow postponement; CRS reports that states have flexibility to postpone or extend federal elections when exigent circumstances make holding them impossible [1] [5]. The National Association of Secretaries of State found a smaller group of states—12—have explicit statutes that authorize suspension, delay, or postponement of elections in emergencies, while a broader set of state statutes and emergency codes could be invoked in other jurisdictions [2].
2. How governors’ powers differ in statute and in practice
Statutory language varies: some laws explicitly empower a governor to reschedule elections within narrow windows—Virginia’s code, for example, permits a governor to postpone an election in affected areas up to 14 days following a declared state of emergency, with detailed rules about absentee ballots and who may vote in the rescheduled contest [6]. Other states vest special authority in secretaries of state, public health officials, or local election boards rather than the governor, creating different decision paths when crises hit [2] [3]. In many states the authority is ambiguous or silent, meaning courts may be called on to interpret whether an executive can act [4].
3. What officials actually did in 2020 when COVID-19 struck
The practical test came in spring 2020: out of 44 primaries, 18 states postponed or changed primary structures for safety reasons, and twelve states used emergency powers to postpone primaries—most often by gubernatorial executive order, though in Ohio the state health director and in Georgia and Kentucky the secretaries of state played decisive roles for some contests [3]. Louisiana’s governor used emergency powers to delay the presidential primary more than two months [4], and New York’s governor postponed an April primary to June and then amended state election law to reflect changes [7]. These examples show both the exercise of clear statutory authority and the pragmatic use of other officials’ powers where statutes were less explicit [3] [4] [7].
4. Legal limits, federal tension, and judicial roles
Even where states purport to postpone federal elections, legal limits exist: Congress has authority to fix the date of federal elections and federal statutes create a uniform Election Day for presidential contests that raises potential federal-state conflicts [1] [8]. Scholarly work and CRS analyses conclude that states generally can reschedule federal elections in exigent circumstances but that courts may be asked to intervene when statutes are ambiguous or when postponement risks violating constitutional timelines; courts have historically been cautious about last-minute relief but have allowed extensions in some emergencies [5] [4] [8].
5. What this means going forward
The current reality is a legal mosaic: a small set of states have clear, specific legislative grants allowing governors to postpone elections [2] [6], many more have broader emergency provisions that could be invoked [1] [9], and practice in 2020 showed officials will use a variety of statutory and administrative tools to protect voters and public health while courts and Congress remain the ultimate legal backstops [3] [5] [4]. Where statutes are vague, the prospect of litigation and inconsistent local practices means contingency planning and legislative clarity are likely to remain pressing priorities for election officials and lawmakers [2] [4].