# Constitution question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2000, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitution-question/40958 "2000-11-13T04:42:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2000, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitution-question/40958/1 "2000-11-13T04:42:57Z")
Ok, what with talk of a revote in Florida/Palm Beach/wherever, I’ve been hearing a lot of cries (mostly from Republicans, but that’s not the point) that “the constitution allows for ONE vote, on election day, not as many votes as you want,” and Rush has accusations of tearing the Constitution apart, even going so far as to quote Article 2, section 1, or whatever the relevant passage is, in the Constitution, on his site. The thing is, the Constitution, so far as I can tell says NOTHING about a popular vote, the day on which it has to occur, or the number of tries a state gets at a popular vote, or even that it has to have a popular vote at all. Now, I’m definetly not in favor of a revote, as a I feel it would be going against the SPIRIT of the Constitution, but, from what I can tell, it really isn’t in any way a violation of the Constitution to do this. The only Constitution that would have a say in the matter is the State of Florida’s constituition. So, am I right? Florida can have as many votes as it wants, and the US Constituition can’t say a damn thing about it, correct? And if this is so, am I justified in adding this to my pile of reasons to dislike Rush? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2000, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitution-question/40958/2 "2000-11-13T05:19:20Z")
The Constitution doesn’t outright say it, but there are numerous Supreme Court legal precedents to that effect. No, I can’t cite them. But somebody will come along who can. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2000, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitution-question/40958/3 "2000-11-13T05:25:48Z")
I suppose that this may prohibit a revote: "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United State. " (Article II,Section 1) If Congress has specifically required that the Electors be chosen on the first Tuesday of November, then choosing them at any other time would be unconstitutional. But then, the Electors haven’t been chosen yet anyway, so even without a recount we’re in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2000, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitution-question/40958/4 "2000-11-13T07:58:47Z")
I’ll be back later with an actual cite (I’m away from my computer where I have the necessary resources bookmarked), but US Code does specify election day as the day the electors are to be appointed. Though it is pretty lax in allowing them to be chosen later if they aren’t chosen on time or something. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2000, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitution-question/40958/5 "2000-11-13T13:00:42Z")
Here you go, US Code, Title 3, Section 1: > [@](#): > > The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. Then Section 2: > [@](#): > > Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. And also Section 5: > [@](#): > > 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. I’m too lazy to read through all of it to satisfy you people’s curiosity, but [here](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=presidential+election&court=us) are all Supreme Court cases that deal (no matter how remotely) with presidential elections.