Denver District Judge Andrew P. McCallin denied Rachel Suh’s request for a preliminary injunction against Colorado’s caucus system on February 5, ruling that private parties’ First Amendment associational rights override constitutional delegation concerns. Hours later, Suh announced her candidacy for Governor of Colorado and said she will not appeal the ruling.
Suh filed Suh v. Griswold in January 2026, challenging Colorado’s delegation of binding ballot-access authority to private political parties through the precinct caucus system. Her complaint raised three claims: ultra vires delegation violating Colorado Constitution Article III, violation of free and open elections provisions, and equal protection violations. The system excludes 1.7 million unaffiliated Colorado voters from participating in the binding ballot-access process that determines which candidates appear on primary ballots.
The state’s attorneys argued caucuses are private party events and Suh lacked standing as an unaffiliated voter to challenge them. Judge McCallin did not rule on standing. Instead, he applied California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) and concluded that political parties have a fundamental First Amendment right to hold caucuses free from state interference. The court treated the case as an attempt to interfere with private associational rights.
Suh’s argument was different. She affirms political parties’ right to associate freely and conduct their own internal nomination processes. What she disputes is whether parties have an associational right to be delegated Executive Branch functions—specifically, binding authority over ballot access to public elections. She argues such delegation violates Article III’s limits on legislative delegation of executive power and cannot be validated by invoking constitutional rights that protect citizens from government, not authorize private entities to exercise government power.
Jones addressed California’s attempt to force political parties to accept voters from outside the party in their primaries—the government compelling association. Colorado’s caucus system operates in reverse: the state delegates sovereign ballot-access authority to private parties, then shields that delegation with party associational rights. Courts must first ask whether Colorado has authority under Article III to delegate ballot-access determinations to private parties. Only if that delegation is constitutionally permissible do party associational rights come into play to define scope and limits. The judge skipped the threshold delegation question, assumed the delegation’s validity, and applied party associational rights as if they could validate what Suh argues is an ultra vires act—government action beyond delegated constitutional authority that is void from inception. Smith v. Allwright (1944) and Terry v. Adams (1953) established that when states make private party processes binding for ballot access, those parties exercise state authority subject to constitutional limits.
Colorado’s 1910 General Assembly recognized the constitutional problem when it first authorized primary elections. The legislature stated political parties conducting primaries were “charged with public duties” and required express statutory delegation of this authority. Modern precinct caucuses operate under the same delegation framework, determining which candidates the major parties will place on primary ballots while unaffiliated candidates must gather signatures to access the same ballot.
Judge McCallin was appointed to Denver District Court Division 269 in January 2014 by Governor John Hickenlooper. He previously served as Assistant Attorney General in the Colorado Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division—the same office now defending the constitutionality of Colorado’s caucus delegation system. Before joining the Attorney General’s office, McCallin specialized in complex commercial litigation at Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons. He earned his law degree from the University of Denver in 1991 and was retained by voters in November 2022 with 76.5% approval.
The state’s defense in Suh v. Griswold is being handled by Emily Burke Buckley and Talia Kraemer, both Senior Assistant Attorneys General in the Public Officials Unit. According to Buckley’s LinkedIn profile, the unit’s role includes defending “the constitutionality of Colorado’s initiated constitutional amendments, statutes, and rules” and handling “election law litigation.” Buckley earned her J.D. from the University of Virginia in 2009 and joined the Colorado Attorney General’s Office in 2018 after working at Jenner & Block and Armstrong Teasdale. She served as Interim Deputy Legal Counsel in the Colorado Governor’s Office from 2019 to 2020. Kraemer graduated from Yale Law School in 2012 after earning a B.A. in Physics from Harvard College.
The preliminary injunction denial means precinct caucuses will proceed as scheduled in March 2026. The state’s Motion to Dismiss, filed January 13, argued Suh lacked standing as an unaffiliated voter. Her February 5 gubernatorial candidacy may provide standing—candidates must navigate the challenged ballot-access system, facing the choice of affiliating with a party to access caucuses or petitioning as an unaffiliated candidate. The Motion to Dismiss remains pending before Judge McCallin.
Suh announced she will not appeal the preliminary injunction ruling or pursue additional court remedies. Her campaign website, KeepColoradoConstitutional.com, outlines a platform focused on people-led constitutional amendments and establishing an office of constitutional accountability. In her announcement, she stated she is “running to provide those complete solutions to the public directly so that they may decide for themselves whether to take baby steps or implement sweeping reforms to Keep Colorado Constitutional.”
Colorado statute requires unaffiliated gubernatorial candidates to collect 1,000 signatures in each of eight congressional districts. Any registered Colorado voter may sign an unaffiliated candidate’s petition, regardless of party affiliation, though each voter may sign only one petition per office. Suh can begin circulating petitions May 14, 2026, and must file them with the Secretary of State by 3:00 PM on July 9, 2026. Sufficient petitions place her directly on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot without competing in the June 30 primary election.
Major party candidates who choose the petition route must collect 1,500 signatures in each congressional district. Only voters affiliated with the candidate’s party may sign, limiting the signature pool to party members who have been affiliated for at least 22 days. Major party petition candidates can begin circulating January 2, 2026 and must file by March 18, 2026. Sufficient petitions place candidates on the June 30 primary ballot, where they must win their party’s nomination to advance to the November general election.
A judge appointed from the Attorney General’s office ruled the caucus system constitutional without addressing whether the state can delegate ballot-access authority to private parties. His former employer now defends that system’s constitutionality in the pending Motion to Dismiss. Suh’s candidacy announcement the same day as the ruling may have solved the standing problem the state raised, but she is taking her challenge from the courtroom to the ballot box.
Sources: Case No. 2025CV1005 (Denver District Court); Complaint filed January 2026; State’s Motion to Dismiss filed January 13, 2026; Plaintiff’s Opposition filed January 14, 2026; State’s Reply filed January 23, 2026; California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 1-4-801, 1-4-802, 1-4-904; Colorado Constitution Articles II, III, VII; Colorado General Assembly Journal (1910); Colorado Judicial Performance Commission retention results (November 2022); LinkedIn profiles (Emily Burke Buckley, Talia Kraemer); Rachel Suh campaign announcement February 5, 2026; Colorado Secretary of State 2026 Election Calendar.
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. 