Rachel Suh wants to know who gave Colorado’s political parties the power to run elections.
The Pagosa Springs activist filed suit against Secretary of State Jena Griswold on December 22, arguing that Colorado’s precinct caucus system violates the state constitution by delegating essential government functions to private organizations without authorization. The case lands in Denver District Court on February 5th for a hearing on the state’s Motion to Dismiss — less than a month before caucuses begin.
Suh raises three claims: that the state illegally delegated binding ballot-access elections to political parties without constitutional authority; that unaffiliated voters have been unconstitutionally excluded from elections with binding legal consequences while 16- and 17-year-old “pre-registrants” can participate; and that the system creates circular entrenchment where only major parties can realistically qualify candidates.
“This case is not about party politics or ideology,” Suh wrote in responses to the High Country Advocate. “It is about whether public elections are being conducted by the actors, and in the manner, the Constitution requires.”
The structural problem is straightforward. Primaries, opened to unaffiliated voters by Proposition 108 in 2016, are state-administered with audits, chain of custody, and independent verification. Caucuses remain closed to party members only, administered by the parties themselves, with no state oversight. The parties self-certify their own results.
Candidates need 30% support at party assemblies to reach the primary ballot. By the time unaffiliated voters participate, the menu has already been set by a process that excluded them. As of December 2025, unaffiliated voters constitute 49.7% of Colorado’s electorate — 1.97 million people locked out of the first stage of candidate selection.
Suh’s legal theory draws on the “white primary” cases. In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s all-white Democratic primary, holding that when a state gives primary results binding legal effect on ballot access, the party acts as a state agent subject to constitutional limits. In Terry v. Adams (1953), the Court struck down a workaround, holding the state cannot evade constitutional requirements through “slight changes in form.”
Colorado delegated portions of the public election process to private parties who certify their own results with binding consequences, Suh argues. Political parties have inherent conflicts of interest in administering elections that determine their own candidates.
The state’s Motion to Dismiss argues the framework regulates private party activity rather than delegating governmental authority. The state’s position: unequal treatment is permissible because unaffiliated voters can gain equal access by “simply” joining a party.
Suh calls that backwards. “Conditioning equal participation in public elections on compelled political association is not a cure for unequal treatment. It is an additional constitutional harm.”
The officials defending this system are running through it. Attorney General Phil Weiser, whose office filed the Motion to Dismiss, is running for Governor through the Democratic caucus process. Secretary of State Griswold, the named defendant, is running for Attorney General through the same system she administers. Griswold has called caucuses “the beginning of our democracy” — while half the electorate watches from outside.
If Suh prevails, the losers would be party insiders who control delegate selection and candidates who rely on insider support to hit the 30% threshold. Both parties would lose their ability to filter who reaches the primary ballot. The winners: Colorado’s 1.97 million unaffiliated voters.
In December 2023, when the Colorado Supreme Court removed Trump from the ballot, Suh wrote a defense of his due process rights, calling the court’s “self-executing” disqualification theory dangerous. “I am not a proponent of Trump,” she wrote then. “I am, however, a passionate proponent of Constitutional Rights.”
She has pursued accountability locally as well. Her 2024 ethics complaint against Archuleta County Commissioner Veronica Medina — alleging conflict of interest when the licensed real estate agent voted on property purchases involving her brokerage — led to a state investigation and the resignation of County Attorney Todd Weaver. In October 2025, she challenged the Pagosa West subdivision on procedural grounds; the planning commission added a legal review condition based on her objection.
The pattern: procedural compliance, proper documentation, officials following the rules — regardless of party.
Suh told the Advocate she will file an affidavit stating her intent to pursue statewide office, establishing standing. She is not running for County Commissioner in 2026. She did not specify which office, what remedy she seeks, or her next step if the Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Caucuses begin March 3. The hearing is February 25. Half of Colorado’s voters are watching from outside the room.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 