Defending Party Autonomy in Colorado Elections

Rachel Suh's lawsuit in Denver District Court, scheduled to begin February 5th, 2026, seeks to block Colorado's political parties from certifying caucus results for primary ballot access, requesting a preliminary injunction to force candidates to rely solely on petitions. This would neuter the caucus process just weeks before it starts on March 3. Suh argues this avoids the Purcell Principle by not altering state-administered elections, claiming parties act as delegated third parties. However, her stance overlooks parties' role as private organizations with the right to select their representatives.

The Role of Political Parties

The party system enables like-minded individuals to unite, establish principles, and choose candidates who embody those values. Parties should select nominees through caucuses, conventions, or other internal methods as they see fit. Non-members should not influence the party selection process in any manner; their input belongs in the general election. Suh's effort to open or invalidate caucus certifications disregards this structure, which safeguards party integrity and prevents external meddling.

Opposition to Proposition 108

I personally opposed Proposition 108, which let unaffiliated voters vote in partisan primaries. Why? Because it dilutes party control by allowing outsiders influence without commitment. Unaffiliated voters wanting input should affiliate. Affiliation is a choice in our multi-party system. Suh highlights that unaffiliated voters, now 49.7% of Colorado's electorate, are excluded from caucuses. But this is reversed logic: unaffiliated status is voluntary. And in a rare moment of concurrence, I agree with Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser's motion to dismiss, which states; "they can join a party to participate".

Legal Precedents Supporting Party Autonomy

Supreme Court cases affirm parties' First Amendment rights to control nominations. In California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), the Court invalidated a blanket primary for violating associational freedoms by including non-members. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) ruled states cannot prevent parties from inviting independents if they choose, stressing party discretion. Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette (1981) held states cannot force parties to seat delegates against rules. Clingman v. Beaver (2005) upheld semi-closed primaries, allowing exclusion of other parties' members. These precedents back Colorado's caucus system, excluding unaffiliated voters from party processes.

Addressing Suh's Constitutional Claims

Conditioning participation on affiliation is a system feature, not harm. Suh deems it a constitutional violation, but parties are private entities under state oversight, not delegating government power. Her claim that parties breach Colorado's separation of powers by certifying results is misguided. Parties exercise autonomy; the state recognizes their choices for ballot access, balancing private activities with orderly elections.  There is nothing stopping Suh, or anyone else for that matter, from forming their own 3rd Party that conveys their values. 

The True Nature of Unaffiliated Voters

Unaffiliated voters are not truly neutral; they often aim to disrupt parties rather than build their own. This mirrors Maoist tactics to undermine systems from within. Lacking cohesion to form a competing group, they use the "unaffiliated" label to erode established parties with core beliefs. In a multi-party system, failure to affiliate suggests disingenuity or laziness.

Hypocrisy and Systemic Issues

Data shows 48% of unaffiliated voters lean Democrat, 47% Republican, and 5% minor parties—meaning only 2.5% of the electorate truly diverges. Yet they criticize two-party dominance loudly. It's hypocritical to claim independence while voting major-party lines, revealing core values without honest affiliation. This often stems from virtue signaling, which is most prominent coming from the left leaning unaffiliated, or fear of social fallout, as politics is taboo for many and intolerance tends to strains relationships.

The 49.7% unaffiliated rate stems from DMV auto-registration, defaulting to unaffiliated when obtaining a  driver's license. Many wouldn't register otherwise. Anecdotes, including my own upon returning to Colorado, show errors favoring unaffiliated for Republicans but not Democrats in red counties, suggesting bias in blue areas that inflates numbers artificially.

Suh's lawsuit, if successful, would disrupt caucus candidates by forcing last-minute signatures. Parties are private, entitled to closed processes. The court should deny the injunction and dismiss, preserving Colorado's system. Unaffiliated voters have options; Suh's challenge, if successful, would undermine our ability to freely associate with like-minded individuals and select the candidates that we agree upon best represent our values. Let’s hope that does not happen. Because, if it does, it just may  destroy our Republic and the very foundation it was built upon. 

Just one man’s humble opinion.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of 5, grandfather of 3, USAF Veteran, recording artist, entrepreneur, Editor of USA Liberty Report, passionate about Freedom, Liberty, the founders’ genius of the Constitution and current Candidate for Montrose City Council.