Caucuses are often romanticized as a crucial engine of grassroots democracy. In reality, however, the March 2026 Colorado Democratic caucuses demonstrated that they are actually an outdated, deeply flawed, and undemocratic way to select candidates or determine ballot access.
If we’re serious about participation, fairness, and legitimacy, this must be the last time we rely on them — especially when the stakes are this high.
Let’s start with a simple, telling fact: the last time a competitive Democratic candidate who won the caucus and assembly process also went on to win the primary for U.S. Senate or governor was Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 1992 — 34 years ago. That’s not a system working. That’s a system deeply disconnected from voters.
Caucuses exclude the vast majority of voters. Even in a high-energy cycle like 2026, participation barely scratched the surface. Roughly 15,000 Democrats showed up statewide — out of more than a million eligible primary voters.
This small number of participants means a tiny, highly motivated slice of activists effectively determines which candidates advance. At the same time, the ordinary voters — those with jobs, childcare responsibilities, disabilities or scheduling conflicts — are largely excluded. The message to those voters is clear: you don’t get a voice.
A system that filters candidates based on a razor-thin fraction of the voting population cannot credibly claim to reflect the will of the party’s voters. That’s not representative democracy, it’s gatekeeping.
Caucuses impose unnecessary barriers to participate. Unlike primaries — where voters can cast ballots by mail or at convenient polling locations 鈥� caucuses demand hours of in-person or virtual participation at fixed times. For the Denver Democratic Assembly, check-in began at 9:30 a.m., and some participants were still there at 6 p.m. trying to support their candidates of choice. That’s not civic engagement鈥攊t’s a test of endurance with a high dose of disenfranchisement. A grassroots democratic form of government should encourage and lower barriers to participate.
The 2026 process didn’t just exclude — it broke down. Despite good-faith efforts to modernize through an app, the result was chaos. The system crashed under heavy use, causing confusion and potentially costing delegates their votes. Entire counties couldn’t complete voting on time.
In La Plata County, voting had to be pushed to Monday night — effectively disenfranchising anyone who couldn’t come back because of work obligations, child care issues or other obligations. In Arapahoe County, participants couldn’t even advocate for their preferred state House candidates, only elect delegates to the county.
News outlets reported that in some cases, party activists waited hours to vote, while others went home and could not participate. Across the state, people waited hours. Some left in frustration. Others weren’t sure if their votes were ever counted.
Fiona Boomer, campaign manager for Democrat Trisha Calvarese in the 4th Congressional District, expressed concern about whether their supporters were able to cast their ballots.
In Denver, delegates were given conflicting instructions; many told voting would be remote, causing many to leave before voting was finally done on site. A supporter of attorney general candidate Jena Griswold described her frustration in attending a Denver caucus and staying almost eight hours in hopes that the technology would work. Iris Halpern, a state house candidate, also expressed concern over caucus attendees leaving throughout the day. That’s not democracy, that’s dysfunction and shutting voters out.
And perhaps most concerning, the caucus system is easy to game. When outcomes depend on a small, insider-driven process, manipulation becomes easier — not harder. We’re already seeing bad actors openly discuss ways to exploit the system by misrepresenting support to sabotage candidates.
At its core, the caucus system concentrates power in the hands of a small group of insiders and activists. It’s a direct vote. It’s a multi-step delegate process that rewards those with the time, access, and familiarity to navigate party machinery. As a result, outcomes diverge sharply from actual voter preferences.
Consider 28-year-old Democratic Socialist candidate Melat Kiros, who is running for Congressional District 1. Kiros outperformed Rep. Diana DeGette in the Denver delegate vote by nearly a two-to-one margin.
Kiros posted an outrageous and offensive digital ad with an image saying centrist Democrats 鈥渇ellate Israel鈥� and 鈥渟uck (expletive).鈥� There is a difference between being anti-establishment and not supporting Israel as opposed to outrageous, radical views laced with antisemitism.
Kiros’s records speak for themselves and illustrate how extreme radical candidates are not only out of touch with Colorado Democrats but also with our state values, too. Yes, more and more extreme candidates in both parties have effectively used these caucuses to fly under the radar and effectively organized a small cadre of activists, like the Democratic Socialists, to show up at the caucus, leading to stunning results that make most voters shake their heads in extreme disbelief.
Caucuses may have made sense in another era. They do not today. And, they help explain the growth of the disgruntled unaffiliated voters — who, by the way, aren’t allowed to participate in caucuses — and make up 53% of Colorado voters.
If we believe in expanding participation and reflecting the will of voters — not just a tiny fraction of activists — then the conclusion is unavoidable: It’s time to retire the caucus system and let voters decide.
Doug Friednash is a partner with the law firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
