03/13/2026
In American politics, access to the ballot has never been neutral. For much of the country’s history, political systems were structured in ways that limited who could participate and who could compete for office. Black Americans in particular experienced this through mechanisms such as white primaries, literacy tests, and other party controlled processes that determined who could exercise political power.
Even after those explicit barriers were dismantled, many political systems still relied on internal party procedures that could restrict access. Caucus systems are one example. They require candidates to organize supporters, participate in a delegate process, and meet thresholds in order to advance to the ballot. Supporters of the system argue that it requires candidates to demonstrate real grassroots support within the party.
At the same time, caucuses have long been criticized for limiting participation because they rely heavily on insider knowledge, organizational networks, and the ability to navigate internal party structures. For that reason, they have often been described as gatekeeping mechanisms within party politics. That history makes the current situation concerning.
The Colorado Democratic Party has chosen to make an exception that allows a former Republican candidate to adjust to a DINO tactic adjusting the caucus qualification process. Normally, candidates are expected to go through the same internal process as everyone else in order to demonstrate support within the party.
When a system that has historically restricted access is treated as mandatory for some candidates but optional for others, it raises legitimate questions about fairness and consistency.
Political parties are private organizations, and they have the authority to make decisions about how their nomination processes operate. However, when those decisions appear to change depending on the individual candidate involved, it can undermine confidence in the integrity of the process.
This situation becomes even more difficult to ignore when viewed through the broader history of access to political power in the United States. For communities that have had to fight for inclusion within political systems, the expectation has always been that the rules apply equally to everyone seeking office.
If the caucus process is considered an important measure of support within the Democratic Party, then it should apply to every candidate. If the party believes the process is flawed or exclusionary, then the appropriate solution is to reform the system for all candidates rather than selectively waive it.
Consistency in political rules is essential to maintaining trust in democratic linstitutions. When exceptions are made, particularly in ways that benefit individuals who previously identified with another party, it creates the perception that access to the ballot can depend on factors other than meeting the same requirements expected of everyone else.
The issue is not simply about one candidate. It is about whether the rules governing access to political power are applied fairly and consistently.
Dear Shad,
I am writing to inform you that I will no longer participate in the assembly process for ballot access in the First Congressional District race.
As a lifelong Democrat, this was not an easy decision. I went through the caucus and assembly process four years ago when I was elected as CD1 Regent, and had every intention of doing it again in this race. I was shocked to learn that all of the Congressional District nominating assemblies were moved from March 26 to March 27 to benefit a single candidate running in a different Congressional race.
As a Navy veteran, a large part of the reason why I am running for Congress is to defend our democracy from this lawless administration and to stand up to MAGA extremism. How can the Democratic Party position itself as the defender of democracy when party leaders put their thumb on the scale to benefit one candidate? In a democracy, decisions must serve the many, not the privileged few.
So in solidarity with my fellow Democrats who feel the democratic nominating process has been tainted, I made the difficult decision to solely petition my way onto the ballot.
Sincerely,
Regent Wanda James
Colorado Democratic Party Denver Democrats Colorado Black Women for Political Action - CBWPA Colorado Black Democrats Denver Young Democrats Colorado Young Democrats Black Democratic Legislative Caucus of Colorado Wanda L. James CU Regent Wanda James, CD1, Colorado Working Families Party, Denver Westword, The Denver Post, POLITICO, Axios,
