Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 8.18 (2026)
Nomination of presidential electors
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
8.18(1)(1) Except as provided under sub. (3), candidates for the senate and assembly nominated by each political party at the primary, the state officers, and the holdover state senators of each political party shall meet in the state capitol at 10 a.m. on the first Tuesday in October of each year in which there is a presidential election.
8.18(2)(2) The purpose of the convention is to nominate one presidential elector from each congressional district and 2 electors from the state at large. The names of the nominees shall be certified immediately by the chairperson of the state committee of each party to the chairperson of the commission.
8.18(3)(3) If, in a presidential election year, a political party does not have a candidate for the senate or assembly nominated by the political party at the primary, state officer, or holdover state senator, in lieu of a convention under sub. (1), no later than 10 a.m. on the first Tuesday in October preceding the presidential election, the chairperson of the state committee of the political party shall do all of the following:
8.18(3)(a)(a) Nominate for the party one presidential elector from each congressional district and 2 electors from the state at large.
8.18(3)(b)(b) Immediately certify the names of the nominees under par. (a) to the chairperson of the commission.
8.18 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 334; 1975 c. 93; 1977 c. 427; 1993 a. 184; 2007 a. 1; 2015 a. 118 s. 266 (10); 2025 a. 47.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Volvo Trucks v. State, Dept. of Transp., 2010 WI 15 (Wis. 2010).
Volvo Trucks v. State, Dept. of Transp., 2010 WI 15 (Wis. 2010). “Allan Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts § 8.18 at 526-27 (3d ed. 2004) ("Whether a material breach has remained uncured for long enough to justify termination is a question of fact, much like whether the breach is material in the first place.”
Blair v. Hebl, 498 F. Supp. 756 (W.D. Wis. 1980). “§ 8.18 (1979). 4 . The openness of the scheme may be attributable to the fact that many (perhaps most) of the elected officers in Wisconsin are chosen in nonpartisan elections.”
Desjurdin Lacey v. Credit Acceptance Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “Friedman, FRIEDMAN ON CONTRACTS AND CONVEYANCES OF REAL PROPERTY § 8.18 (7th ed. 2005) (stating that “[t]he effect of merger may be qualified by agreement”).”
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.