Rachel Suh will ask a Denver District Court judge on February 5 to stop Colorado from accepting caucus results as a path to the primary ballot.
The Pagosa Springs activist filed for a preliminary injunction that would bar the Secretary of State from granting ballot access to candidates certified through party caucuses. Candidates who chose the caucus route over petitioning would still have time to gather signatures before the March deadline. The March 3-7 caucuses could proceed — they just wouldn’t determine who reaches the June 30 primary.
Suh argues this avoids the Purcell Principle, which generally prevents courts from changing election rules too close to an election. “It is not a State Administered Election and both the State and I concede this,” she told the High Country Advocate. “They are delegated third parties who run these elections.”
Political parties claim to act as private organizations when administering caucuses, Suh argues, but they’re exercising authority delegated by the state. When party leaders certify caucus results and the Secretary of State grants ballot access based on those certifications, a private organization is making binding decisions about public elections.
The lawsuit began with a different question. Republican gubernatorial candidate Victor Marx had been blocking constituents on social media while campaigning for delegates. Marx and his supporters claimed he could do this because he’s a “private candidate.”
Suh investigated that concept and concluded it doesn’t exist in Colorado. Candidates qualify under state election law, file affidavits with the state, can be disqualified by the state, and operate under state campaign finance oversight.
That led her to examine the parties themselves. If candidates aren’t private actors, why should the organizations certifying ballot-access elections be treated as private? The answer, she argues, is they shouldn’t — and the state’s delegation of that authority violates the Colorado Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
The structural problem extends beyond caucus participation. Under current law, any party whose gubernatorial candidate receives 10% of the vote must hold caucuses. But that threshold can never apply to unaffiliated candidates. Even if an unaffiliated candidate won 15% of the vote, there’s no mechanism for unaffiliated voters to hold their own caucuses — the mandatory trigger applies only to “Qualified Organizations.”
Unaffiliated voters now constitute 49.7% of Colorado’s electorate. They can vote in primaries under Proposition 108, but the caucus-assembly system that determines who reaches the primary remains closed. Half the electorate is locked out of the first stage of candidate selection.
Proposition 108’s drafters kept caucuses closed for “party building.” Suh argues that rationale doesn’t override constitutional requirements. Parties can hold closed caucuses as private organizations — but they cannot certify results that compel the state to grant ballot access.
Attorney General Phil Weiser’s office has moved to dismiss the case, arguing the state regulates private party activity rather than delegating governmental authority. The state’s position: unequal treatment is permissible because unaffiliated voters can join a party.
Suh calls that framing backwards. “Conditioning equal participation in public elections on compelled political association is not a cure for unequal treatment,” she wrote. “It is an additional constitutional harm.”
The February 5 hearing will determine whether Suh’s request for preliminary injunction proceeds. If granted, candidates seeking the primary ballot through caucuses would need to petition instead. If denied, caucus certifications would stand and her case would continue toward trial on the underlying constitutional questions.
If the court grants the state’s Motion to Dismiss entirely, Suh told the Advocate she will not appeal. “I will seek other political remedies instead of remedy through the courts.”
Caucuses begin March 3. The hearing is February 5.
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. 