Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-23 (2026)

Registrars of voters. Posting of public hours. Maintenance of voter information

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) The registrars of voters shall post, at the town hall or municipal building in the town in which they serve, the hours they are available to the public. Any change in the regular business hours of the office of the registrars of voters, and any hours for said office required under the general statutes for a specific day, shall be posted at least ten days before such change or day.

(b) The registrars shall enter the name, residence, date of birth and date of admission of each person admitted as an elector in the records of the registrars' office, which shall be prima facie evidence that each such person possesses the requisite qualifications of an elector. The registrars shall also enter such voter information in the state-wide centralized voter registration system and shall maintain such voter information for active electors in a fire-proof cabinet in the registrars' office. The registrars shall file monthly in the office of the town clerk an updated list of active electors in the town.

(1949 Rev., S. 1019; 1953, S. 525d; 1971, P.A. 768, S. 8; 1972, P.A. 39, S. 1; P.A. 79-363, S. 8, 38; P.A. 90-156, S. 3; P.A. 04-113, S. 1.)

History: 1971 act following “... persons admitted as electors” deleted “at any session of the board for admission of electors held for that purpose”; 1972 act provided for application of section by adding “In towns which do not have full-time registrars of voters with regular office hours”; P.A. 79-363 added requirements that information to be recorded by town clerk to include residence, date and place of birth and date of admission of electors and added provision for towns having full-time registrars which includes those whose offices maintain daily office hours, such registrars to file that information in the office of town clerk; P.A. 90-156 added Subsec. (b) re exceptions to Subsec. (a); P.A. 04-113 eliminated former Subsec. (b) re inapplicability of Subsec. (a) to certain towns, divided existing Subsec. (a) into new Subsecs. (a) and (b), amended Subsec. (a) to require registrars to post hours they are available to the public and revised Subsec. (b) re registrars' duties, effective July 1, 2004.

See Sec. 11-8(b) re appointment of Public Records Administrator.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1971–2020 · leading case: Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Champion Steel, LLC.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Champion Steel, LLC (Conn. 2016). “Practice Book § 9-23 provides that "[a]n action may be brought in all cases in the name of the real party in interest, but any claim or defense may be set up which would have been available had the plaintiff sued in the name of the nominal party in interest.”

Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Hellman (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). “’’ Practice Book § 9-23 provides that ‘‘[a]n action may be brought in all cases in the name of the real party in interest, but any claim or defense may be set up which would have been available had the plaintiff sued in the name of the nominal party in interest.”

Hall v. Kasper Assocs., Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “The indemnity agreement in evidence clearly set out Hall’s agreement to indemnify the title insurer from any loss to induce it to certify over the unreleased Kasper mortgage.”

Charles Lee Parker v. Fred R. Ross, Superintendent of Caledonia Corr. Unit (4th Cir. 1972). “In the application he claimed that the grand jury that indicted him was unconstitutionally impaneled because the jury selection procedure systematically excluded members of his race.”

Pools By Murphy & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Consum. Prot. (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003). “1987) § 9-23, p. 376. Thus, not only owners of property on which home improvements have been performed but also others who have been injured as a result of a contractor’s performance could conceivably be compensated by the commissioner via an enforcement proceeding under the act.”

Parker v. Ross (E.D.N.C. 1971). “C.G.S. § 9-23, constituted an adequate state ground precluding the Court’s reaching the grand jury issue.”

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.