Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-176 (2026)

Meeting of presidential electors

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The presidential electors shall meet at the office of the Secretary of the State at twelve o'clock noon on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of the December following their election and, as required by the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall cast their ballots for President and Vice President. Each such elector shall cast such elector's ballots for the candidates under whose names such elector ran on the official election ballot, as provided in section 9-175. If any such elector is absent or if there is a vacancy in the electoral college for any cause, the electors present shall, before voting for President and Vice President, elect by ballot an elector to fill such vacancy, and the person so chosen shall be a presidential elector, shall perform the duties of such office and shall cast his or her ballots for the candidates to whom the elector that he or she is replacing was pledged.

(1949 Rev., S. 1104; 1953, S. 659d; 1961, P.A. 374, S. 2; P.A. 24-3, S. 2.)

History: 1961 act required presidential elector or his replacement to vote for candidates under whose names he ran; P.A. 24-3 replaced “first Monday” with “first Tuesday” and made technical changes, effective May 9, 2024.

Chosen electors are required to vote for the candidates nominated by their national political party. 254 C. 789.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2000–2000 · leading case: Reform Party v. Bysiewicz, 760 A.2d 1257 (Conn. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reform Party v. Bysiewicz, 760 A.2d 1257 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 9-176. 8 The Connecticut Reform Party on August 27, 2000, nominated presidential electors to vote for Hagelin and Goldhaber, not Buchanan and Foster.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.