What’s Taking So Long? On the Gap Between Election Day and the Inauguration

By Judith E. Schaeffer, Vice President, Constitutional Accountability Center

Is it just me, or does Election Day — November 4, 2008 — feel like a geologic era ago? (And, as I write this, we are still four days away from the Inauguration.) Well, imagine what the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day must have felt like before the ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933. Back then, the new President was not sworn in until March 4, four months after Election Day. That makes our modern transition period seem like, well, just a brief moment in time.

In the early days of our country, it made sense to give the new administration several months in which to take office. Election returns could hardly be gathered with the speed in which they are now (even if recounts might seem to take an eternity), and travel by horse and buggy took quite a bit longer as well. But by the 20th Century, there was no reason to retain the four-month gap, and so Congress proposed, and the States duly ratified, the 20th Amendment, which fixed the start of a President’s term at noon on January 20th. (The Amendment also shortened the period of time in which Representatives and Senators would serve as “lame ducks” by mandating that the Congress convene in January.)

Some question, however, whether even the shorter interval between Election Day and Inauguration Day created by the 20th Amendment is still too long. Now, for example, with our country in a deep financial crisis, with the Middle East in renewed turmoil, and with the approval ratings of our current President at record lows, would our country have been better off if the President elected in early November could have taken office sooner than January 20th? Given the important decisions that must be made before a new administration can effectively govern, including the selection, vetting, and nomination of members of the Cabinet, is it even practical to think that there could be a shorter transition time?

These very questions are being debated between Constitutional scholars Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin (as well as numerous commenters) at Balkinizaton. We encourage you to take a look at their discussion, posted here, here, here, here, and here. Whatever you may think of a two-month transition, at least we can thank the 20th Amendment that it’s not twice as long.

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2025

Birthright Citizenship 101

Thank you to our partners at UnidosUS for translating this resource into Spanish. Links to PDF versions...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates

In United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments...
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

CAC (Bloomberg): CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to Discuss TikTok Supreme Court Case

Bloomberg TV