Fresh off a campaign season built on the promise of “saving democracy,” Democratic officials and aligned advocates are taking steps that critics say undermine the very principle they claimed to defend. From Seattle to Colorado to Washington, D.C., the party’s recent actions suggest a willingness to override voter decisions and reshape the constitutional landscape without direct public consent.
Seattle and Colorado: Overriding Voter Mandates
In Seattle, Mayor Katie Wilson announced the city would block a statewide initiative that passed in 36 of 39 counties. The measure, which requires separate sports teams for boys and girls in K-12 schools, enjoys broad bipartisan support—polls indicate roughly 70% of Americans back the policy. Wilson, however, argued that the public’s choice was misguided and that the city must “protect” residents from their own decision.
Similarly, Colorado’s governor-elect, Phil Weiser, who previously joined “No Kings” protests, has signaled he will push the Democratic supermajority in the legislature to revisit two voter-approved propositions. Proposition 134 mandates that athletes compete on teams matching their biological sex at birth, while Proposition 135 bans gender-affirming surgeries for minors. Weiser called the measures “anti-trans” and said Democrats would “fix” them to provide “a much more human and sound approach.” This from a politician who recently championed “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Alaska’s Decoy Candidate and Legal Maneuvering
In Alaska, Democrats backed a decoy “Dan Sullivan” on the ballot to confuse voters in the Senate race, a scheme coordinated with Marc Elias’s law firm, according to The New York Times. The effort aimed to siphon votes from the Republican incumbent, a tactic that critics say is a blatant attempt to manipulate election outcomes. This follows earlier Democratic attempts to remove Trump and other Republicans from ballots, which the Supreme Court ultimately rejected.
Structural Overhauls: Court Packing and Electoral College Abolition
Democratic leaders are now openly discussing structural changes that would cement their power. A Harvard law professor has suggested that with a packed Supreme Court, Republicans could “never win another election.” Court packing, which can be done by a simple legislative majority, is opposed by most Americans but remains a live option for party strategists.
Beyond the judiciary, there is a growing push to effectively abolish the Electoral College, a move that would require a constitutional amendment—but Democrats are exploring legislative workarounds that would give blue states greater influence without voter input. Similarly, statehood for the District of Columbia, which is constitutionally designated as a federal enclave, is being pursued without amendment, and Puerto Rico statehood is also on the table to boost Democratic Senate numbers.
Historical Parallels and the Path Forward
These tactics echo the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who used populist rhetoric to seize power but then ruled as an elite, concentrating authority in committees and silencing dissent. Today’s Democratic leaders, as noted in “Rage and the Republic,” are using the language of democracy to secure their own dominance while offering voters only symbolic participation.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has promised “many, many, many investigations” into what she calls the “criminals” of the opposition, signaling a combative agenda. As the party moves forward, its actions may well define whether it truly respects democratic norms or merely pays them lip service. Critics argue that if Democrats continue down this path, they risk alienating the very voters who trusted them to protect the system.
