I am writing to Chicago DSA members about a disappointing failure of democracy in the elections for at-large Executive Committee members for 2026–27. In a measure brought to it by the Internal Election Committee, the current EC has disqualified my candidacy to be one of the five at-large EC members for the next term. I was given the option of resigning as the incoming Political Education Coordinator, a position I won in a chapter-wide election several weeks ago, in order to be permitted to run for an at-large position. I have no intention of resigning from a position that I look forward to filling for the next year.

I was disqualified from running for an at-large EC member position under Article IX Section 3 of the chapter bylaws. The article covers elections to the EC, and Section 3 covers the process for electing “Chapter Officer EC Members” and “at-large candidates.” It bars chapter officers from holding two seats on the EC (as an officer EC member and an at-large EC member). But as Political Education Coordinator, I am *not* a “Chapter Officer EC Member.” Under the newly amended bylaws, the Political Education Coordinator and several other positions elected chapter-wide are no longer EC members.

This is the very reason I decided to run for one of five at-large EC seats. As I wrote in my candidate statement for at-large EC member: “I don’t see how our committee can accomplish its goals for integrating political education in all parts of the chapter without full participation in the body that coordinates chapter work. In addition to the general contribution I would hope to make on the EC, I want to represent this important aspect of the chapter’s work in the same way that other areas, like membership engagement, labor, and now electoral work, are represented.” (The rest of my statement can be read here.)

I was not informed that my candidacy was in question until an hour before the EC began voting. No one from the IEC or EC who questioned my candidacy contacted me to discuss this, before or since. I was allowed to make an email statement to the EC after voting had already begun, but nothing more.

Had I been allowed to speak to this question, I would have asked what comrades think the purpose of Article IX Section 3 is. From what I’ve heard secondhand (again, no one who objected to my candidacy has contacted me about this question), the argument is that the Political Education Coordinator is listed in the article (A-V.S8) about local officers, and therefore I am barred from holding an at-large position. But Article IX is about elections to the Executive Committee, and the specific section being cited begins with a sentence defining the election method for “Chapter Officer EC Members.” The Political Education, Communications, and Campaigns Coordinators are local officers but *not* EC members. 

At the very least, there are conflicting interpretations here. In which case, we should consider if there is a good political reason for the interpretation of the bylaws that applies the A-IX.S3 restriction to the Political Education Coordinator position. I understand the need to bar Chapter Officer EC Members from also holding an at-large seat. But I will not be an EC member by virtue of being Political Education Coordinator, so I would not be holding multiple EC seats if elected. The Membership Engagement Coordinator and now the Electoral and Labor Coordinators will be Chapter Officer EC members while also having responsibilities in a committee, working group, or branch, so that can’t be it. I think one other at-large member candidate is a leading officer of the chapter’s Electoral Working Group; does that merit disqualification? If I were to win an at-large seat, I would not be adding to the size of the EC and affecting the “efficiency” of the body. 

I have not heard and cannot conceive of a single reason of substance for *why* the bylaws should be interpreted this way. What aspect of democracy would be violated?

As things stand after the current EC vote on my candidacy, any member of Chicago DSA who has been a member for four months is qualified to run for an at-large EC member seat and to hold that seat if elected — except for two other comrades and I who went through a chapter-wide election for non-EC-member local officer positions. This is undemocratic, creating a special membership status for three non-EC-member officers who are excluded from running for election to hold a seat and have a voice on the chapter’s highest decision-making body in between GCMs.

During the convention debate on amending the bylaws, I and other comrades warned that the unamended base amendment could lead to a lack of input from important parts of the chapter and reduced debate and discussion. If I am disqualified from running for at-large EC member, I think this would be a failing of democracy in the chapter and a poor start for the new structure established under the bylaws amendment.

As I also wrote in the candidate statement for the at-large EC position from which I’ve been disqualified, I bring a lot of experience in the socialist movement, especially in finding common ground among socialists despite political differences. I believe my record in Chicago DSA bears that out, including my relationships with comrades who have disagreed with me on many issues. Beyond representing the area of work I will be coordinating, I think I could contribute positively to the EC based on my experience and record. 

The EC can still reconsider its decision; the at-large elections don’t begin for a week and a half at this writing. I urge all comrades who agree with the points I’ve made to contact EC members and call on them to change their undemocratic decision.