The complaint, dated Jan. 26, was filed against Rep. Mandy Lindsay, an Aurora Democrat, by Rep. Bob Marshall, according to emails and a copy of the complaint obtained through a public records request. In the complaint, Marshall, a Highlands Ranch Democrat, accused Lindsay of “grossly” mismanaging the House Democrats’ internal bank account, including through more than $8,800 in allegedly inappropriate reimbursements she paid to herself.

The caucus account pays for retreats and other caucus events, and it’s funded by dues from Democratic lawmakers.

“Lindsay … frequently used the fund for personal use in an unethical and potentially criminal manner, with funds unaccounted for by appropriate receipts or with any other basic and fundamental fiscal measures one would expect of a person in the exercise of fiduciary duties required by such a role and office,” Marshall alleged.

In a text message Tuesday evening, Lindsay wrote that she respects “the ethics committee, trusts in the work they will do, and I look forward to the process.” Lindsay is serving her second full term in the legislature.

House leadership unanimously voted to send the complaint to the chamber’s ethics committee. The five-person bipartisan ethics committee met to discuss it for the first time Wednesday morning.

During the meeting, lawmakers seemed troubled by the allegations, particularly those related to checks Lindsay had written herself from the caucus account.

Rep. Javier Mabrey said some of the alleged misconduct “skirted the line” between criminal and civil concerns. He and Rep. Karen McCormick said they wanted to probe the intent behind the alleged problems and determine if they were caused by “incompetence” or unethical behavior. Both are Democrats.

After lawmakers asked who now controlled the caucus money, Mabrey said that he believed House leadership has since “taken over” the caucus’s spending account from Lindsay.

“One charge here or there in isolation might not mean something,” added Rep. Steven Woodrow, another Democrat. “But if it’s a pattern, I think that’s something different. And a lot of what I see here is a potential pattern of misconduct — and even if it’s just being sloppy with records, when you are basically the trustee of an account, you are a fiduciary. And that means you have a heightened duty of loyalty and care.”

Rep. Matt Soper, a Republican, asked if the committee could forward any findings to law enforcement; legislative staff said that question should be directed to the full chamber for a vote, once the committee’s work has concluded.

Marshall earlier told The Denver Post that he had filed the complaint “because there has been no accountability.” He declined to comment further.

In his email to House leadership along with the complaint, Marshall wrote that it was “abundantly clear” that Lindsay had breached her fiduciary duties as manager of the caucus’s money, and his complaint included photos of various checks to and from Lindsay.

Speaker Julie McCluskie and Majority Leader Monica Duran declined to comment through a spokeswoman Tuesday afternoon.

Last summer, House Democratic leadership asked the Colorado Democratic Party to review its caucus fund in response to concerns about Lindsay’s financial management. In an October letter to McCluskie, the party’s compliance director, Will Quinn, wrote that the caucus actually owed Lindsay nearly $1,200, though he also wrote that the manner in which her transactions “were conducted was irregular and inconsistent with standard financial management practices.” In December, he revised the amount owed to Lindsay down to $370.

Quinn wrote that though he was not an accountant or a fraud specialist, his review determined the caucus’s fund had been used appropriately. But he said the House Democrats should make several changes to their financial processes.

In the complaint, Marshall questioned the legitimacy of the party’s review. Among his allegations was that Lindsay wrote a $2,500 caucus check to her personal account in March 2025, reimbursing her for caucus dues that, Marshall wrote, she hadn’t paid since 2022. When she did pay dues that year, he alleged, they were paid by her campaign, not out of her own pocket.

Marshall said Lindsay repaid the $2,500 in April 2025 after she was “confronted” by Rep. Junie Joseph, Lindsay’s co-chair of the caucus.

Joseph, a Boulder Democrat, has told The Post that she was aware of the ethics complaint against Lindsay. She declined to comment further, “out of respect for the process.”

Lindsay also wrote herself a check for more than $6,300 in December 2024 as reimbursement for recent retreat expenses, Marshall wrote. But the caucus’s debit card had already paid that amount to the hotel that hosted the retreat, he wrote, and he alleged that Lindsay later claimed that she was owed the exact same amount for prior caucus expenses.

The ethics committee will next launch an investigation into the complaint to determine if there’s probable cause to support Marshall’s allegations. If the committee finds there is probable cause, Lindsay will have an opportunity to request a formal evidentiary hearing.

The committee can then make recommendations for a range of discipline options against Lindsay, from letters of reprimand to a chamber-wide vote on censure or expulsion.

Both men will appear on the June 30 primary ballot. Bottoms, who is one of the most conservative lawmakers in the state Capitol, won slightly more than 45% of the 2,145 ballots cast, comfortably beating Marx’s 39% and topping a field of more than a dozen candidates who vied for gubernatorial ballot access. When Marx’s total was announced and Bottoms’ victory assured, the lawmaker’s supporters shouted and jumped around him in the bleachers of Colorado State University-Pueblo’s arena.

“This is our year. This is the year we’re going to do this,” Bottoms, who is in his second term in the statehouse, said in brief remarks earlier Saturday. He promised to work with federal immigration authorities, to build nuclear reactors and to “reclaim safety and security.” He also pledged to “DOGE the mess out of everything in this state,” a reference to billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” which gutted a number of federal programs last year.

State Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, who also is running for governor, did not participate in the assembly process and has instead submitted signatures to appear on the primary ballot. Marx also submitted signatures while also seeking the assembly nomination.

The party also nominated state Sen. Mark Baisley for U.S. Senate, former Colorado Libertarian Party official James Wiley for secretary of state, and Fremont County Commissioner Kevin Grantham for state treasurer. All those candidates will be appear on the ballot alone in June, virtually assuring them places on the November general election ballot.

For attorney general, the assembly sent Michael Allen, the district attorney in El Paso County, and attorney David Willson to the primary election in June.

The day was marred by delays, mistakes, long lines and, as afternoon turned into evening, a voting discrepency: About 80 more ballots had been cast than delegates had been credentialed to cast them. The assembly then voted to accept the new ballots as legitimate (the official running the meeting said they likely were).

The winner of the June gubernatorial primary will face off against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet or Attorney General Phil Weiser, each of whom are seeking the Democratic nomination to replace Gov. Jared Polis next year.

The Republican candidates who emerge from the primaries will face a Colorado Democratic Party that has held all four constitutional statewide offices since 2018. No Republican has won the governor’s office since 2002, and the last statewide win for a GOP candidate was Heidi Ganahl’s win for a University of Colorado governing board seat in 2016.

Repubican contenders repeatedly promised to reverse those trends Saturday. Eighteen gubernatorial candidates initially were slated to speak, although several didn’t turn up and their candidacies did not advance. One candidate — Kelvin “K-Man” Wimberly — appeared to have no supporters present to nominate him. That prompted someone from the crowd to run up to the microphone, gesture to Wimberly and offer to nominate “this guy.”

As party members slowly trickled into the building Saturday morning, campaign volunteers wandered, handing out bags with posters for Marx or walking in slow arcs with signs for fellow chief executive hopeful Robert Moore. Scott Pond, who hopes to take on U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper in November, signed a pair of baseball caps for one supporter. Many attendees — including the conspiratorial podcaster Joe Oltmann — wore “Free Tina Peters” stickers, a sentiment echoed by a banner hanging behind the assembly stage.

Several candidates, including Marx, pledged to free the former Mesa County clerk, who was convicted for orchestrating a plot to sneak a third party into a secure area to examine voting equipment after the 2020 election.

Oltmann briefly ran for governor before declaring his candidacy to become the state GOP’s chairman.

On Friday, former state lawmaker Ron Hanks was nominated to launch a right-wing primary challenge against U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, the freshman Republican who represents the Western Slope’s 3rd Congressional District. Hurd’s previous primary opponent, Hope Scheppelman, dropped out of the contest last month, after President Donald Trump re-endorsed Hurd.

They’ll be part of a contingent of local Democratic heavy-hitters — also including Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib — visiting the Crescent City to bolster Denver’s bid as it competes against four other cities.

Crow said the fact that Denver has done it before means it’s more than prepared to do it again. Denver hosted the Democratic convention in 2008, when a fresh-faced U.S. senator from Illinois named Barack Obama accepted the party’s presidential nomination.

“We know we can do this and do this well,” the congressman from Aurora told The Denver Post in an interview on Thursday. “We have the capacity. We have the infrastructure.”

And Colorado, he said, has the blue credentials to excite the base and put them to work making sure the next occupant of the White House is a Democrat.

“At a time when the Democratic Party is facing a crisis of confidence in so many places, and in so many ways, Colorado is a beacon of how to do it right,” Crow said.

Early last month, the national party announced that Denver to host the Democratic National Convention — joining Atlanta, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. The nominating convention for the party’s presidential ticket is set for Aug. 7-10, 2028.

The party and potential host cities are working out site visit plans for each in the coming weeks. A decision on which city wins the bid will likely be made this summer.

Johnston and other city representatives have lobbied for the event both formally and informally in recent months. The mayor’s spokesman, Jon Ewing, confirmed Johnston’s appearance in New Orleans this weekend and said the mayor recognizes the manifold benefits of steering the event to the Mile High City.

“Landing the DNC would be an enormous economic boon for Denver, bringing tens of thousands of visitors to Colorado and generating hundreds of millions of dollars in activity for the city and local businesses,” Ewing said.

Murib spoke to The Post by phone from New Orleans, where he’s been since Monday. He will join Crow and Johnston in speaking to the delegates at the spring meeting on Friday evening.

“We’re hoping to show them why Denver is the best place for the 2028 convention,” he said. “We want to emphasize the seamless experience they will have in Denver — from the airport to the hotels to the convention.”

Each of the finalist cities has hosted at least one past Democratic convention — Philadelphia in 2016, Boston in 2004 and Atlanta in 1988. Chicago hosted in 2024, the most recent of its dozen times playing the role.

“We want to show how the convention could be one for the history books again,” Murib said, alluding to the nomination of America’s first Black president 18 years ago.

Murib said three Denver City Council members — President Amanda Sandoval, Chris Hinds and Darrell Watson — will be at the national Democrats’ meeting as well.

Crow, an Army veteran who represents a Colorado district that takes in the eastern and southern suburbs of Denver, is serving as battleground co-chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2026 election cycle.

Colorado was among the top states in the nation for Democratic performance in the 2024 election, bucking what was otherwise a red wave that handed control of the White House and Congress to Republicans. Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris beat now-President Donald Trump in Colorado by a margin of 11 percentage points.

“We’re a model for the country,” Crow said.

He said this week’s gathering of party leaders is a critical moment in the push to get Denver back on the national stage two years from now.

“This is the biggest gathering between now and when the (convention) decision is made,” Crow said.

Murib said the meeting in New Orleans won’t be all serious business, though.

“It’s a little bit of a party — and a pitch,” he said.

Someone dressed in a big blue bear costume — an homage to the 40-foot ursine behemoth who peers into the Colorado Convention Center along 14th Street in downtown Denver — has already been getting a lot of attention from attendees, the party chair said.

“Everyone is getting a picture with the big blue bear wearing Mardi Gras beads,” he said.

Melat Kiros — who’s also a lawyer and a Ph.D student when she isn’t behind the counter at the Whittier Cafe — is picking up momentum in her first-ever political campaign. She’s running against longtime U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the Democratic primary for Colorado’s 1st Congressional District in Denver.

DeGette, who was sworn into office the year Kiros was born, has .

But Kiros, a Democratic socialist, rose to prominence after she demolished DeGette in the Democrats’ Denver County assembly last month. And while political observers, including Kiros herself, say the assembly process isn’t actually representative of who will vote in the June primary, the win still marked a surprising development in a race that many considered to be predetermined.

“This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the fact that Denver Democrats want a fighter — somebody who is actually committed to transformative change,” Kiros said in an interview this week with The Denver Post.

Kiros didn’t keep DeGette off the ballot, but she gave her a scare. Kiros won 646 votes, or the support of 63% of those present at the county assembly. DeGette won 336, or 32% of the votes.

It was the first time DeGette had lost a county assembly vote since she initially won her seat in Congress in the 1996 election.

Two weeks after the county assembly, DeGette, 68, narrowly won her place on the primary ballot at the 1st Congressional District party assembly, receiving 33% support — just above the 30% threshold to make the ballot. A third primary candidate, University of Colorado Regent Wanda James, , but her voter signatures are still under review by the state.

Denver-based state Rep. Javier Mabrey, who endorsed Kiros, said he saw her as part of a larger movement within the Democratic Party: voters who don’t want to see the same types of candidates elected.

Like New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Kiros is a more progressive Democrat than those who currently make up the majority of the party’s members in Congress, he said.

“I think there’s an energy for politics that says, ‘Our problems are more complicated than Donald Trump alone. We’ve got to confront the conditions that led to Donald Trump,” Mabrey said of the Republican president. “I think Melat has tapped into that.”

Kiros will still have a long way to go if she hopes to pull off a win of the June 30 primary, however. The assembly gathered only a tiny sliver of the 416,000 people eligible to vote in the June Democratic primary — 230,000 unaffiliated voters and 186,000 registered Democrats, as of March 1, according to the secretary of state’s office.

A spokesperson for DeGette’s campaign said the congresswoman was proud to have made the ballot through the assembly process.

“This is ultimately only a small first step with a small group of people,” Jennie Peek-Dunstone wrote in an email. “Now, we are talking with hundreds of thousands of Democrats and unaffiliated voters across the District. Diana has deep support across Denver because she’s always fought for us. She’ll keep championing our progressive values by standing up to Trump, fighting for universal health care, and defending our democracy — just as she always has.”

Denver is a Democratic stronghold, meaning that whoever wins the primary is all but guaranteed to win the general election. In 2024, DeGette defeated her Republican challenger with 77% of the vote.

Kiros’ background

A child of immigrants, Kiros was born in Ethiopia but moved to Denver with her family as a baby. She left the city to attend Washington College in Maryland and went on to attend law school at the University of Notre Dame. After passing the bar exam, she began work as a securities regulation attorney at , one of the biggest law firms in the country.

Kiros said that two years in, firm leaders fired her for a by Hamas in Israel, which responded by launching a war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the post, she questioned Israel’s legitimacy as a state and disavowed about the rise in antisemitism.

“This letter rightfully rebukes the anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and bigotry of all kinds that has spiked in recent weeks, but then goes on (to my confusion) to cite ‘calls for the elimination of the Israeli state’ as anti-Semitism,” she wrote. “… To conflate such bigotry with the geo-political question of Israel’s legitimacy is one of the greatest travesties in this conflict.”

More recently, Kiros has been criticized for sharing last month with a video that said Democrats “fellate Israel” and “suck (expletive).” The video was promoting an online rally for progressive candidates and speakers.

Kiros said she didn’t write that phrasing and doesn’t endorse that language.

After her firing from the law firm, Kiros says she decided to get more involved in politics. Now, she’s pursuing a doctorate in public policy with a focus on “democracy reform” at .

In 2024, she volunteered as the communications director for Democrat John Padora’s campaign in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District — one of the most conservative seats in the state and now represented by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.

‘Our party isn’t fighting back’

Kiros’ online ads , calling out not only DeGette but also former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. One shows large Xs over photos of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden while Kiros says: “We hear politicians say over and over that we need bold leadership, progress and change. We’ve heard this for years. Decades. But they never deliver.”

“Our party isn’t fighting back like they should,” she goes on to say.

Kiros is endorsed by the Denver chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Justice Democrats. She says that if elected, she sees herself aligning with members of Congress like U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

She would use her position, she said, to “call out the Democrats who are not actually fighting for our values” and pressure them to change the votes she disagrees with. That could include civil protests and threatening quorum.

Her top three policy priorities would be passing “Medicare for All” and universal child care and creating a publicly financed election system similar to the one that Denver uses in city elections, which includes public matching for smaller-dollar donations.

DeGette supporters emphasize that the congresswoman is also a co-sponsor of Medicare for All legislation. Angie Anderson, a Platt Park resident and mother of 2 young children, said she’s heard DeGette talk about it.

“I consider myself pretty progressive, and I think that she represents me very well,” said Anderson, who said she has voted for DeGette in every election since she’s lived in Denver.

Ocasio-Cortez even gave DeGette a shout-out for her support of the policy .

“She is one of the most powerful people in Congress on health care,” Ocasio-Cortez said to the crowd of 30,000 people. “And Diana DeGette is a co-sponsor of Medicare for All. She believes in the guaranteed right to health care for every American. Thank you for electing her.”

Anderson said she thinks Kiros and DeGette are actually pretty similar politically.

“I just think the real difference is that Rep. DeGette has many years of experience and is actually a very skilled policymaker and legislator,” she said. “I take issue with the idea that youth and inexperience is fundamentally required to effect change.”

What did assembly win mean?

After Kiros’ assembly win, a wide swath of political observers jumped in to say that while the event’s outcome was surprising, it wasn’t particularly meaningful for the upcoming primary.

Doug Friednash, a former Denver city attorney and chief of staff to then-Gov. John Hickenlooper, wrote in a Post opinion piece recently that assemblies exclude the vast majority of voters, resulting in a “tiny, highly motivated slice of activists” to determine results.

“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,” wrote Friednash, now a partner with Denver-based law firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck.

At the very least, the win showed that Kiros’ team found a way to out-organize DeGette’s team. But it remains to be seen if that will continue through the primary election.

Kiros and her supporters agree that her assembly win doesn’t mean she’s a shoo-in to win the primary.

“I don’t think that folks who talk about the assembly not being reflective of the general electorate are wrong,” Kiros said. But she noted it was unusual for an incumbent to lose an assembly vote.

“DeGette has been challenged before,” Kiros said. “This is a different kind of campaign.”

Mabrey said finding ways to raise money for her campaign will be one of the keys for Kiros in the remaining months before the primary.

“Melat����ap going to need an injection of grassroots campaign cash to keep up,” he said.

Through the end of 2025, she had raised about $204,000 and spent nearly $138,000. DeGette had raised about $729,000 and spent $507,000 through then, while James had raised about $179,000 and spent $86,600.

Despite having lower cash reserves than DeGette, Kiros is getting recognized more often when in public, she said. During a recent hourlong interview with The Post at a Capitol Hill coffee shop, two people stopped by the table to introduce themselves and voice their support for her.

“I’m totally voting for you, dude,” one said. “Your campaign is (expletive) awesome.”

Between now and June, Kiros plans to knock on doors, call voters, work with businesses and use digital advertising to get her message out. Nearly 200 people volunteered at a recent weekend canvassing event, she said.

“The thing that we need to do to win,” she said, “is to give people enough faith that getting involved will make a difference.”

Staff writer Seth Klamann contributed to this story.

While a state senator backed up that account, Bennet’s campaign disputed the characterization on Tuesday.

For the Sunday event in Englewood hosted by , organizers initially wanted Bennet and his Democratic primary opponent, Attorney General Phil Weiser, to share the stage. But they changed the format to a forum with each candidate at Bennet����ap request — with the senator set to speak first, followed by Weiser.

Bennet����ap team also raised several concerns early last week, six days before the event. Azra Taslimi, an attorney and a co-founder of Colorado Muslim Vote, said that in addition to raising concerns about security and about how organizers planned to handle disruptions, Bennet����ap campaign manager also requested no questions related to Gaza or Israel’s war in the Palestinian territory.

Taslimi declined the campaign’s request and also declined to provide specific questions in advance, she told The Denver Post. But she said she told Bennet����ap team that she would work with them on framing the questions appropriately and that she shared the topics of the questions.

The campaign then said that Bennet would not participate, Taslimi said, because the forum wasn’t the appropriate place to talk about his record on Gaza. Instead, the campaign said Bennet would be willing to meet with Muslim leaders privately to discuss the issue, Taslimi recalled.

State Sen. Iman Jodeh, an Aurora Democrat, said in an interview that she also spoke with Bennet����ap campaign, which provided the same reasoning for backing out of the event.

“How can we not ask about a thing that affects so many people in our community?” Taslimi said Tuesday.

She said her group had sought security for the event and had taken steps to curb any disruptions. During the forum, when some audience members interjected as Weiser answered questions about Israel and Gaza, Taslimi — who moderated the event — intervened.

Bennet����ap campaign “absolutely, unequivocally said: ‘No questions on his record about Gaza,’ ” she said in an interview. “The takeaway was, if we agreed to not ask questions about his record, that he would still participate.”

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Bennet spokeswoman Jordan Fuja said the campaign “did not demand to approve questions in advance nor refuse to answer questions about his record.”

“Michael is deeply committed to having meaningful conversations with the Muslim community,” Fuja wrote. “As we received details about the forum, it became clear that this event would not lend itself to a genuine dialogue where Michael can listen to the community and provide the clarity people deserve.”

“Michael has never refused to answer difficult questions,” she continued, “and will continue to have these conversations, as he has his entire career.”

Bennet — who, like Weiser, is the son of Holocaust survivors — has in Gaza but has limiting . He’s faced public questioning over Israel before: He was repeatedly interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters during an event last May, and audience members to Israel during another town hall in Colorado Springs earlier last year.

“I do think the Gaza situation is a tragic, tragic situation,” he said at that event. As he started to talk about a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, audience members interjected.

The latest disagreement comes as Democratic politicians nationwide try to navigate growing criticisms from their own voters about American support for Israel. The Middle Eastern country has been accused of human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza, where by the Israeli military since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

As the death toll in the Palestinian territories has mounted, public polling has shown a stark decline in support for Israel among U.S. voters. In February 2022, 55% of voters had a favorable view of the country. Four years later, that figure had fallen to 37%, .

The decline is even sharper among national Democrats: According to Pew, 80% of Democrats and likely Democratic voters hold an unfavorable view of Israel, a 27-point increase from 2022.

The shift among Democrats has played out in Colorado, too. Nearly two years after the Colorado Democratic Party rejected a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, the party last month at its state assembly that accused Israel of committing genocide in the territory.

The state party also called for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the U.S.-based lobbying group that spends heavily to support pro-Israel candidates, to register as a foreign agent under federal law.

, Weiser was peppered with questions about Israel and Gaza, alongside questions about how he would address anti-Muslim bigotry, according to a video of the event. He pledged to “listen and work with you” and noted the rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric.

That earned him applause. He received a much more muted response when he said that, though he didn’t agree with all of AIPAC’s actions, he didn’t support requiring the group to register as a foreign agent.

Weiser did not directly answer when asked if he supported repealing a Colorado law that requires the state employees retirement fund to divest from any company that boycotts Israel. He argued that the fund should be focused on making the best investments it can, not “seeking to advance foreign policy goals.”

Another audience member then asked if Weiser agreed with the state party’s recently adopted policy platform, which labeled Israel’s government as “extremist” and said the country’s campaign in Gaza was genocidal.

“I will answer your question this way: I recognize the human rights violations that we’ve talked about. I will say that the Netanyahu government has had actions and policies that I find abhorrent and that pain me,” Weiser said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I will say that at my Passover Seders, I and others were praying for peace and were pained by the suffering of so many innocent Palestinians and kids who have suffered so greatly.

“I feel and I understand the pain that so many have been affected by. I recognize the need and the work ahead for repair.”

That drew murmurs that Weiser hadn’t directly answered the question. Taslimi then asked Weiser if he was disagreeing with the state party’s platform.

“I’m saying that this is a word” — genocide — “that I use very, very” carefully, he said, adding: “I will condemn the suffering, the pain, the human rights violations.”

On Saturday, at least, you call them Democrats. Then, in two weeks, you call them Republicans.

The Democratic Party faithful are gathering this weekend in the southern Colorado city for their first in-person statewide assembly since 2018 — and the party’s most consequential assembly since then, to boot. A slew of candidates are vying for the party’s nominations to the state’s top offices, nearly all of which are open because of term-limited incumbents.

The Colorado Democratic Party’s state assembly on Saturday at Memorial Hall marks the first major winnowing of those candidates. It’s also a chance for the victors to rally the base — and, they hope, ride a wave of victory headlines to the June primary election, where voters will have the final say on nominations.

In two weeks, on April 11, the Colorado Republican Party will follow suit with their state assembly, at Massari Arena on the Colorado State University Pueblo campus.

The stakes are similar in each case. Party members, picked among neighbors at precinct and county caucuses across the state in the weeks before, will name their preferences for a slew of elected offices, from U.S. senator and governor to members of the state House of Representatives. 

The assemblies aren’t the end of the nomination process — indeed, some of the highest-profile names in Democratic politics are foregoing it. But the event will exclude from June 30 primary ballots those candidates who rely on the assembly and fail to clear its 30% threshold of support. The assembly vote winners will land on the ballot’s top line.

“The most exciting thing about (the assembly) is how it levels the playing field for grassroots competitors to have a shot at sharing a message that, in some cases, resonates broadly,” Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib said.

The assembly puts candidates in front of swaths of some of the most dedicated Democrats in the state to make their case, one five-minute speech at a time.

The candidates also get the chance to rub elbows in hallways and have one-on-one conversations with voters about why they should hold the office they’re seeking — making potentially invaluable inroads, particularly for lesser-known candidates looking to knock off longtime officeholders.

Already, the caucus and assembly process revealed an organizing gap for one longtime politician. Candidate for Congress Melat Kiros walloped U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette at the Denver County assembly in mid-March, winning nearly two votes for every one the 15-term congresswoman pulled in. On Friday night, Kiros easily cruised to a place on the June primary ballot, earning 67% of the party’s nominating vote to DeGette’s 33%. Though she lost, DeGette avoided the unthinkable — falling below 30% and falling off the ballot.

Former Gov. Roy Romer, a Democrat who led the state from 1987 to 1999, praised the caucus and assembly process as a way for regular people to steer the party, rather than letting someone just throw tens of millions of dollars into an election. He’ll be introducing Attorney General Phil Weiser, a candidate for governor, at Saturday’s assembly.

“This way is a movement,” Romer said in an interview. “When you’re petitioning, you’re a little more distant from people. This is working with people, community by community. This is a way to come together and say this is our nominee.”

Alternatively, candidates can qualify for the ballot by collecting petition signatures. U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper both pursued that option. Bennet is running for governor against Weiser, while Hickenlooper is seeking reelection.

They each collected nearly 15,000 signatures, or some 10 times the number of people who will be at the assembly, and were the first candidates to qualify for the June primary.

On the Republican side, state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer and pastor Victor Marx have both submitted more than 20,000 signatures to the secretary of state’s office to qualify for their party’s gubernatorial primary. More than a dozen other GOP candidates have also filed for the office. The GOP assembly next month is expected to pare down that field substantially.

Seth Masket, a University of Denver political science professor, cautioned against making assumptions about the routes the candidates take to the ballot.

Further-left and further-right candidates tend to benefit from the caucus and assembly process because they tend to attract a more passionate followings, he said. That doesn’t mean they necessarily do or don’t have a broad base of support, but they do have supporters who care enough to spend a weeknight at a caucus or a spring Saturday in a convention hall.

Candidates who are more mainstream in their party — and especially those with money — generally find it easier to petition onto the ballot. They can also avoid the risk of being kept off the ballot by an organized, enthusiastic base of opposition that only needs a few hundred people to potentially keep them below the 30% threshold necessary for ballot qualification. (The threshold drops to 10%, however, if the candidate goes a hybrid route of pursuing both petitions and the assembly vote.)

“(A successful assembly candidate is) not necessarily the candidate that’s going to win the primary, but it is a candidate that has a passionate following,” Masket said. “Not every candidate has that and, to be honest, more mainstream candidates don’t tend to have that kind of following. What they do have is more general name recognition and support from party members.” 

Recent electoral history in Colorado has shown that assembly victories rarely translate into overall victory in the primary.

In 2010, Bennet, who had been appointed to the Senate but not yet won an election, . In 2018, then-U.S. Rep. Jared Polis lost the caucus vote in his bid for governor. In 2020, Hickenlooper likewise lost the caucus in his first bid for the U.S. Senate.

All three went on to win the party nomination in the primary, and then they won the general election. 

So far this cycle, public polls show Bennet and with wide leads over their competitors, even as they cede the assembly to their rivals.

“Both methods require any candidate to earn the backing of voters from every single corner of this state,” Jordan Fuja, a spokesperson for Bennet����ap campaign, said in a statement. “… Colorado voters are looking for a governor with the experience, vision, and commitment to delivering the results we need. Michael has held a commanding lead since he first entered this race because Coloradans know he is the right candidate to protect Colorado from (President Donald) Trump’s chaos and build an economy that works for working people.”

Hickenlooper, meanwhile, had initially intended to go through the caucus and assembly process before putting his efforts into the petition process. 

In a statement, his campaign acknowledged the switch, saying the intent was voter outreach.

“Our focus in participating in the caucus process at the beginning was to help energize the base, meet with voters, and support the work of our county parties,” spokesperson Jess Cohen said. “The senator appreciates everyone who has participated in the process and really enjoyed having conversations with folks across the state.”

Hickenlooper’s decision to pull back, meanwhile, left openings for his rivals — and a chance to rally a fired-up Democratic base that has shown it����ap open to change.

“It����ap clear to me that the base of the Democratic Party is interested in evaluating who talks a good game and who walks the walk,” said state Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Denver progressive who’s running against Hickenlooper. “Who’s actually done the work and put in the muscle to listen to people and to translate those frustrations, those hopes, those anxieties, into concrete and durable policy. That����ap the work.”

Candidates seeking state and federal office through the state Democratic assembly

Besides state legislative races, here are the candidates seeking placement on the Democratic primary ballot at the state assembly in Pueblo. The party has been organizing multicounty assemblies separately for congressional candidates.

U.S. Senate: Karen Breslin, state Sen. Julie Gonzales and Jessica Williams

Governor: Antonio Martinez, William Moses, Erik Underwood and Attorney General Phil Weiser

Attorney General: Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty, Secretary of State Jena Griswold and David Seligman

Secretary of State: State Sen. Jessie Danielson and Jefferson County Clerk Amanda Gonzalez

State Treasurer: State Sen. Jeff Bridges, John Mikos and state Rep. Brianna Titone

Source: Colorado Democratic Party

The shock drubbing, delivered ahead of a formal assembly vote next week, was among signs that Democrats participating in the party’s caucuses and assemblies are dissatisfied with incumbent officials. Some other incumbents, including U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper in his reelection race and Sen. Michael Bennet in the governor’s race, have been leaning on the petition route to the ballot rather than facing primary opponents at the March 28 state assembly.

At the Denver Democrats’ county assembly on Saturday, Kiros — a 28-year-old doctoral student and former lawyer — won 646 votes, or 63%, compared to DeGette’s 336 votes, or 32%. The result was the first time DeGette, 68, has lost a county assembly vote since she entered Congress in 1997, Kiros’ campaign said.

If that level of support holds at the party’s 1st Congressional District assembly on March 27, Kiros will cruise to a place on the June 30 primary ballot. DeGette, meanwhile, cannot afford to lose any more ground: If fewer than 30% of delegates support her at that virtual assembly, she won’t make the ballot at all. Time is rapidly running out to switch tactics and get on the ballot by submitting voter signatures, with petitions due to the state on Wednesday.

“I think it����ap a testament to the organizing we were doing and the lack of organizing (DeGette) was doing on her part — and her thinking she would coast through,” Kiros said in an interview. ” … It was just an incredible, incredible day, and I’m really proud of what our campaign was able to accomplish.”

DeGette campaign spokeswoman Jennie Peek-Dunstone said the congresswoman “received more than the required threshold and we are confident she will be on the primary ballot.”

The polling win does not, by itself, mean that Kiros is a front-runner to prevail in the June 30 primary election, and her campaign will still need to flip DeGette delegates if it wants to keep the congresswoman off the ballot. That’s far from a sure thing, especially for a candidate with the experience and name recognition of DeGette.

But it does speak to the Kiros’ campaign’s organizing capabilities, and the results also represent something of a wakeup call, said Seth Masket, a political scientist at the University of Denver.

“DeGette and others know their party and the people associated with it are not terribly popular right now,” he said. “Democrats in general elections have the wind at their back right now, but incumbents in primaries — not so much. It����ap a harder environment.”

DeGette faces progressive challenge

A first-time candidate and daughter of Ethiopian immigrants, Kiros previously worked as a lawyer in New York. She was fired after writing in late 2023 criticizing law firms — including her own — that had signed onto a letter opposing anti-Israel protests. She then moved back to Colorado and entered a Ph.D program at the University of Colorado Denver.

She’s run a progressive challenge to DeGette, backing “Medicare for All,” universal child care and an embargo on arms sales to Israel, a nation that she has accused of committing a genocide against Palestinians.

Kiros has also been endorsed by the Justice Democrats, a left-wing Democratic group that’s backed candidates like now-U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna and Ilhan Omar.

In her Denver assembly speech Saturday, DeGette accused Kiros of lying about her — a comment that drew boos from the audience.

Already a longtime supporter of Medicare for All, DeGette has backed more progressive causes in the past year. She for a halt to providing offensive arms to Israel, and she told assembly-goers Saturday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be abolished and that she wouldn’t support any funding for the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. Those pledges drew cheers.

Kiros’ preference poll win was fueled by pre-assembly organizing, her campaign and supporters said, particularly on the part of the Denver chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. Deep Singh Badhesha, a DSA member who supported Kiros’ campaign, said organizers had group chats, stickers, food — they’d even set up a system to find babysitters for those who needed it. Such organization also helped the campaign sidestep technology problems that delayed the assembly, he said.

Those tech problems have contributed to lingering concerns among the DeGette campaign about assignment of delegates for the assembly next week, though her campaign said she was not disputing Kiros’ polling victory.

The assembly results come amid a broader surge of challenges to incumbent Democrats nationwide by often-younger and more progressive candidates. More than a dozen Democratic U.S. House members will face primary challenges this spring and summer, .

Some of the contests pit older incumbents against newcomers. Some feature moderates competing against liberals. Some of the matchups have resulted from the nationwide redistricting wars that redrew incumbents’ seats. Most of the races share a common ingredient: challengers seeking to move past the party’s losses in 2024 — and to bring more energy to the fight against President Donald Trump.

“Within the Democratic Party, it����ap this notion of how you best respond to a country that Trump is dominating when you’re all, as Democrats, unhappy with that,” Paul Teske, a professor at CU Denver and former longtime dean of its School of Public Affairs, told The Denver Post on Tuesday. (Kiros was a student of Teske’s last year.)

In addition to Kiros, University of Colorado Regent Wanda James is also running against DeGette in the primary. She did not participate in the assembly process Saturday and planned to file a petition to make the ballot.

‘Scared of the base’

Elsewhere, in the Democratic race for governor, Bennet’s campaign as he filed his primary ballot petition that he wouldn’t also seek a spot on the ballot through the caucus and assembly process. His rival, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, is relying on next week’s state assembly in Pueblo to make the primary ballot.

State Sen. Julie Gonzales has launched a progressive Senate primary campaign against Hickenlooper, who dropped out of the assembly process last week after initially participating. Hickenlooper’s campaign noted that he didn’t complete the assembly process during his first Senate campaign in 2020 and that he’s already submitted petitions for his place on the primary ballot.

In an interview, Gonzales countered that the senator was “scared of the base.”

Some left-wing-versus-moderate fights are set for state legislative races, too. In the Colorado attorney general’s race, two newcomer candidates, David Seligman and Hetal Doshi, are challenging Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty for the Democratic nomination.

In a news release Tuesday morning, Seligman’s campaign said he led Griswold by 2 percentage points in a straw poll of Democratic assembly delegates statewide.

Teske and Masket underscored that success in the Democrats’ assembly process, which often draws more progressive or active party members, does not necessarily translate to a high likelihood of victory in the June primaries.

Kiros’ campaign and organizing helped turn out motivated and informed delegates and supporters Saturday, and they seemed to catch DeGette flat-footed. But the June contest will feature tens of thousands of voters, including many who are unaffiliated, and will require campaign organizing on a vastly different scale.

It will also require money. DeGette had more than $535,000 on hand as of Dec. 31, compared to Kiros’ $64,000. After 30 years in office, which has included DeGette sweeping aside the occasional primary challenge, she can also boast strong name recognition.

“I was surprised,” Teske said of Saturday’s results. “I think Melat’s campaign organized well, got a lot of people out, got young people excited. … Whether it builds any momentum or changes anything is hard to say, because it����ap still hard to beat an incumbent.”

The New York Times contributed to this story.

Vietnam Syndrome — the deep reluctance to project American power abroad after the trauma of the Vietnam War — was first widely recognized as a driving ideology within Democratic circles just as I arrived in Washington, D.C., to begin my career. The mood of the city then was shaped by the revelations of the Vietnam War, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the findings of the Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church, on which Colorado’s freshman senator, Gary Hart, served. Americans learned of CIA overreach, covert interventions, and hard truths about government deception. The national psyche shifted.

By the time the Iran hostage crisis unfolded under President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was deeply wary of military force. Carter chose negotiation and restraint as 52 American diplomats were held for 444 days by the new Islamic Revolutionary regime. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his approach, it reflected a broader hesitancy shaped by Vietnam’s shadow.

That hesitancy has never fully disappeared.

Today, as the United States and Israel act together to degrade the military capabilities of the Iranian regime — a regime that has funded and armed proxy militias across the region for decades — I am struck by the cautious, almost antiseptic language coming from many Democratic leaders.

For example, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said this week: “Any use of military force must be consistent with our constitutional framework and avoid drawing the United States into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.” That concern is understandable.

No American wants another Iraq or Afghanistan. But when constitutional process becomes the primary lens and the strategic objective becomes secondary, it echoes the old reflex: avoid strength for fear of entanglement.

Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, emphasized that “Congress must be consulted before further escalation,” underscoring the need for oversight and warning against “another prolonged regional war.”

Rep. Joe Neguse similarly stressed that, “First and foremost, our constitution is crystal-clear: the decision to take our nation to war rests with Congress.”

Process, process, process. Deflection from the embrace of American strength to rid the world of the worst of the worst.

I write this not as a detached observer. I spent formative years in Washington working in pro-Israel politics, engaging both Democrats and Republicans, and watching firsthand how internal party debates over strength and restraint played out. In the year 2000, I ran as the Democratic nominee in Congressional District 6 now held by Jason Crow. Yet today, I view these events from the front row.

Six years ago, I became a dual U.S.–Israeli citizen and now spend most of my time in Herzliya, just north of Tel Aviv. Since Saturday morning, much of our community life has shifted underground. We move between home and reinforced shelters as Iranian ballistic missiles — fired from roughly 2,000 miles away — target civilian neighborhoods. These are not symbolic gestures; they are designed for mass casualties. The families in these shelters are not abstractions in a policy debate. They are neighbors.

From this vantage point, the debate in Washington feels tone-deaf.

When Iran’s leadership vows Israel’s destruction and arms groups who are committed to that goal, deterrence is not theoretical. It is existential. The current joint operation — undertaken by President Donald Trump in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — may be politically controversial, and both leaders are undeniably flawed. But the strategic objective of preventing a violent theocratic regime from expanding its destructive reach is neither reckless nor novel. It is long overdue.

This is where Vietnam Syndrome still lingers — not as a slogan, but as a mindset. The instinct to lead with caution rather than clarity. To emphasize process before principle. To worry first about overreach rather than about the consequences of inaction.

I do not expect unanimity. I do not expect cheerleading. But I do expect moral clarity when civilians are under sustained attack and when a regime that has destabilized a region for nearly half a century is finally facing meaningful consequences.

From Washington, these questions are strategic. From Herzliya, they are personal. The Democratic Party once prided itself on combining moral leadership with pragmatic strength. The challenge now is whether it can rediscover that balance — not abandoning caution, but refusing paralysis. History shows the costs of both overreach and retreat. The test of leadership is knowing the difference.

Ken Toltz is a 3rd-generation Denverite, long-time political activist, and a former Democratic nominee for Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. He now lives in Herzliya, Israel.

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.

Updated March 6, 2026 at 8:19 a.m. Due to a columnist’s error, the original version of this opinion column misquoted Rep. Joe Neguse.

Re: “Group pursues map that would give Dems 7-1 edge,” Feb. 19 news story

As a reasonable and fair-minded voter, I was incredibly proud of Colorado for establishing a non-partisan commission to determine the Congressional Districts after each census. The result was District 8, which is a near 50/50 split between Republican and Democratic voters ( This is how the Framers envisioned the entire country. When this is successful, we truly have a government that is representative of the people.

However, with the recent efforts by the Republican Party to gerrymander states to gain more red seats, the tide has turned. If allowed to go unchecked, we would truly be living under an autocratic leader, where future elections and choices would likely be decided by the ruling party.

In spite of my feelings about rolling around in the mud with these perpetrators, the Democratic Party has no choice but to undertake this same effort in order to protect democracy and the rule of law. Once the Democrats are able to re-establish a firm footing, new regulations regarding elections and term limits can be enacted to rein in this anarchical behavior.

David Thomas, Denver

When it comes to redistricting, I completely get why Democrats do not want to unilaterally disarm. I would rather voters choose their elected representatives than have elected representatives choose their voters. But that is not where we are at.

The independent commission that set current district boundaries made an egregious error, in my opinion, by splitting Loveland and Fort Collins into different districts. The two cities and surrounding areas are part of a formalized metropolitan area. As well, Larimer and Boulder counties are home to our state’s two largest universities and the populations that serve and support both.

Interstate 25 is a natural cultural and economic divider, so if cleaving off parts of Northern Colorado is necessary, there is your dividing line. If the ballot measures do not unite Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins, I will vote against them and urge others to do the same.

John W. Thomas, Fort Collins

I find it ironic that the proposed map to favor Democrats in seven of the eight Colorado Congressional districts is being proposed by a group called Coloradans for a Level Playing Field. Curtis Hubbard, spokesman for the group, claims, “No one wanted to have to take this action — independent redistricting is the ideal,” an ideal his group will abandon in order to skew voting for representation in Congress. Our state is currently balanced in representation equally among the eight districts, with Democrats having a slight edge.

To top it off, the issue will be decided by Colorado voters, not the state legislature. The recent redistricting , which would reduce Virginia’s Republican representation in Congress to one representative, will also head to the polls in April. To their credit, Republicans in the state legislature in red-state Indiana recently refused redistricting to favor Republicans, on ethical grounds.

States are now abandoning independent, bipartisan commissions that have traditionally been tasked with redistricting — often at 10-year intervals to coordinate with the Census. This manipulation, a frenzied approach to control Congress, seems unhealthy to our democracy.

Karen Libby, Denver

Wanna bet the commission’s move will benefit the Trumps?

Re: “Trump administration backs prediction markets vs. states,” Feb. 18 news story

President Trump appointed the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who then threw the weight of the federal government behind the prediction market and its primary operators, Kalshi and Polymarket.  Any friendly decision the CFTC makes could financially benefit the president’s family: Donald Jr. has invested in Polymarket and is a “strategic advisor” to Kalshi.

Here’s a bet I want to make — a parlay:  The CFTC will act in such a way that the Trump family will make millions, and Congress will ignore such obvious conflicts — unlike what they did when Hunter Biden was on the board of a foreign company that President Biden had no power to regulate. Put me down for the maximum.

Dan Danbom, Denver

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.

The new map, proposed by Coloradans for a Level Playing Field, would give Democrats an advantage in seven of Colorado’s eight congressional seats — but not until 2028 at the earliest, unlike in several other states to benefit Republicans or Democrats in this year’s election. Colorado’s eight seats currently are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with the GOP winning the only true swing district in 2024.

Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement that the proposal seeks to push back against redistricting proposals in Republican states that have been championed by President Donald Trump.

“No one wanted to have to take this action — independent redistricting is the ideal,” Hubbard said. “But with Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans actively working to rig congressional elections, resulting in the potential gain of up to 27 seats in Congress, Colorado must join other states in countering this unprecedented power grab.”

Colorado voters approved a pair of bipartisan amendments to the state constitution in 2018 that tasked independent redistricting commissions with drawing its congressional and state legislative maps. The congressional map that took effect in 2022 has resulted in one extremely competitive seat, the 8th Congressional District; four with a Democratic advantage; and three that lean Republican.

The state is now represented by a 4-4 split of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, even as the state had trended distinctly blue in recent statewide elections.

The new proposals, which were filed for on Wednesday, would pause the independent redistricting map for the 2028 and 2030 elections. The independent commission would draw a new map following the 2030 census to be used for the 2032 election.

The move was criticized by the campaign of U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans, the Republican who won the 8th District race in 2024, unseating a Democratic incumbent.

“For years, Colorado Democrats lectured everyone about the sanctity of the independent redistricting commission and claimed it was the gold standard for fairness,” spokeswoman Alexandria Cullen said. “Now that Coloradans have elected four Republicans to Congress, they want to change the rules. This isn’t about fairness — it����ap a partisan power grab to protect their failing extreme agenda from the will of Colorado voters.”

Coloradans for a Level Playing Field filed several proposed ballot measures, a common tactic by advocacy groups to ensure the title board approves one or more.

The proposed map would have seven of Colorado’s eight congressional districts reach into Denver, Boulder or their suburbs and outlying areas — all places with strong Democratic leans. It would leave Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, currently represented by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, covering the state’s Eastern Plains but ceding some of Douglas County.

Hubbard said his group hopes for an initial hearing by the state’s title board in March and for final approval in April. Backers would then have until Aug. 3 to gather to land the measure on the November ballot.

The independent redistricting commission was created via a voter-approved constitutional amendment. Hubbard’s group filed initiatives for both statutory and constitutional changes in case officials allow for the first option, which is easier to petition onto the ballot.

It would need about 125,000 signatures for a statutory change. For a constitutional change it would need that same number of signatures but with a geographic representation requirement, including support from at least 2% of all voters from each of Colorado’s 35 state Senate districts.

A statutory change would need majority support from voters in November to become law, while a constitutional change would require at least 55% support.

Hubbard declined to name the group’s financial supporters ahead of a May filing deadline with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

“We believe we have the support and resources to get this passed in November,” Hubbard said in an interview.

‘We will challenge these,’ conservative group says

Michael Fields, the president of the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado, promised to fight the measures.

The independent redistricting measures from 2018 had each declared that “political gerrymandering … must end,” and each was approved by more than 70% of voters, he said.

“After reviewing these hyper-partisan ballot measure proposals, we believe that they clearly violate the single-subject provision of our state constitution,” Fields said in a statement. “We will challenge these at Title Board — and up to the Colorado Supreme Court, if necessary.”

Nationally, Republicans kicked off the redistricting war last year in response to the potential of losing seats in the 2026 midterm election, and Democrats responded with their own plans.

Redistricting plans in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, with another proposal proposed in Florida. Texas lawmakers have already approved a new map that could net Republicans five additional seats in November. Republican officials in Missouri and North Carolina have also approved new maps to benefit the GOP in upcoming elections.

In Democratic states, voters in California last fall approved a new map that could net Democrats five more seats. Voters in Virginia will decide in April on letting its lawmakers redraw maps to benefit Democrats ahead of the November midterms.

Court rulings or legislative efforts also could affect congressional districts in New York, Maryland and Utah.

In all, those proposals and efforts may largely counteract each other when it comes to the congressional balance of power, according to The New York Times. by the news organization found that, taken together, the new maps could give Democrats a net advantage of two seats or Republicans a three-seat advantage, depending on how specific scenarios play out.

Hubbard also noted from the U.S. Supreme Court that could undo key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting. Such a ruling could open up further .

“We can sit back and do nothing, or we can take action to approve temporary maps that will help keep our elections on a level playing field,” Hubbard said of his group’s proposal.

Separately, Trump has also called for Republicans to “” voting as he continues to push disproven theories of widespread voter fraud.

Reaction to Colorado proposal

The new Colorado proposal has drawn reactions that fall along partisan lines, including from the state’s members of Congress and candidates in various races this year.

“We cannot sit idly by as a target of Trump’s retribution and depravity,” U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat who represents the 7th Congressional District, said in a statement that signaled support for the temporary map. “We must use every chance we have to stand up and fight back and ensure Colorado voters have a choice.”

Zach Kraft, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, called the proposal “gerrymandering at its worst and a blatant power grab by a sketchy, dark-money Democrat organization that refuses to disclose who its donors are.”

Besides Evans, the Republican lawmakers who would be most affected by the new map proposal — U.S. Reps. Jeff Hurd and Jeff Crank — did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday. The Colorado Democratic Party did not provide comment.

Sara Loflin from the left-leaning group ProgressNow Colorado praised the effort. Her group supported Amendment Y, which created the state’s independent congressional redistricting process, because “that was at a time when we all believed that the country was coming out of this Donald Trump, authoritarian” moment.

But she said the redistricting fight nationally, urged on by Trump, called for changes.

“We’re happy about it because Donald Trump forced our hand,” she said. She added that she thought the proposal in Colorado was more democratic than Texas’s redistricting plan, since Colorado voters would get a chance to accept it instead of the change coming through a legislative approach.

Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, avoided taking a position on the redistricting effort through a spokeswoman, who said he’d review any ballot measures closer to the election.