In big battleground states, many intraparty divisions get papered over in service of forming a united front to beat the opposition. But in a one-party town like D.C., all the really juicy fights happen when Democrats duke it out among themselves.

Loose Lips hears that’s exactly what’s been going on within the D.C. Democratic Party these days. Though this particular round of fighting kicked off when party leaders decided to file a legal challenge to Initiative 83, the ballot measure that could bring ranked choice voting and open primaries to local elections, several activists tell LL the internal debate has since expanded to cover fundamental questions of how the organization is run. Many say dissatisfaction with party chair Charles Wilson has been building for some time, and the I83 issue brought things to a head after Wilson decided to challenge the initiative without consulting his colleagues first.

“The inclusivity has just gone out the window, and it just feels like it’s closing off more and more,” says Elizabeth Mitchell, who represents Ward 3 as an elected Democratic state committeewoman, one of more than 80 leaders that govern the party. She joined her other three ward committee members in writing a widely circulated letter to Wilson outlining some of these complaints on Sept. 6. 

“It’s reverting back to many of the same bad behaviors that we were seeing under Anita [Bonds] to the point that, even with this last election cycle, I think a lot of us really weren’t even sure if we were going to run again,” Mitchell adds, referencing the at-large councilmember who previously led the party for years and faced similar complaints about her leadership.

It may be easy to dismiss some of this grumbling when it comes from ranked choice voting supporters, such as Mitchell, who are upset that Wilson has led the party in fighting so aggressively against the idea these past few years. But LL has heard concerns from even those party members who are more ambivalent about the ballot initiative; some ardent RCV backers don’t believe it’s wise to package the measure with open primaries, for instance, but they still feel Wilson should’ve asked for their input before proceeding with the legal action.

“There are a lot of leaders on the [party’s] executive committee who were left out of the decision-making process and did not feel heard,” says Candace Tiana Nelson, the chair of the Ward 4 Democrats and head of the party’s Black caucus. She’s also the influential “chair of chairs,” representing all the ward chairs in party leadership. “And it could be perceived as a pattern of sorts of having leaders being left out of decision making when it comes to the party,” Nelson adds.

Wilson downplayed the severity of these divisions in an interview with LL, arguing that this kind of dispute “comes with the territory” when leading a large organization like the D.C. Dems. He notes that he’s met with Mitchell and the other Ward 3 committee members to hear them out and he “always appreciates their feedback.”

“Intraparty conflict in political parties is nothing that’s uncommon,” Wilson says. “That’s what makes the D.C. Democratic Party great, it’s that diversity of thought. And we look forward to having these conversations over the next couple of months to see what’s appropriate for the party at the end of this.”

Wilson believes that he was able to answer many of these questions at the party’s last meeting on Sept. 7, when he set aside time for a more in-depth discussion of I83 and outlined the party’s legal arguments against it. That included a question-and-answer session with the attorney who helped the Dems file the legal action, D.C. fixture Johnny Barnes.

“I noticed that the conversation was kind of being misconstrued to what we’re fighting against versus what we’re fighting for,” Wilson says. “And the reality is, the Democratic Party and all political parties, have a right to have autonomy on how their primary elections are conducted. We had to explain to members that it’s up to them, as members of the party, to decide how our primaries are run.”

Mitchell had a different interpretation of that gathering, dubbing it “a colossal waste of time.” She says Barnes ran through a “bullshit parade” of arguments against ranked choice voting, echoing the claims he made in the lawsuit that the practice would’ve denied Mayor-for-Life Marion Barry his first mayoral primary victory in 1978. Barnes has a history of what might politely be called colorful comments in his long career in D.C. civic life; he turned up last year to compare the Board of Elections to Donald Trump for its decision to throw At-Large Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie off the ballot in the attorney general race. (Several people also noted to LL that Barnes’ website features a cleavage-heavy photo of a “model of the month” alongside otherwise sober legal commentary.) 

Several party activists have expressed skepticism about the wisdom of paying for Barnes’ services, with some of those concerns bubbling over in the meeting itself. Party leaders shared budget documents before the meeting suggesting that they’ve paid Barnes about $5,300 so far, but some still worry that costs will balloon as the case drags on. The first hearing on the matter is scheduled for Nov. 3 in D.C. Superior Court.

“That money is being spent on this when it could be spent on other things, like voter outreach and education, or helping to fund affiliate organizations,” says Joe Barrios, the president of the D.C. Latino Caucus, one of the party’s aforementioned affiliate organizations. “We do have the concern that our representatives on the committee did not have the ability to weigh in one way or the other on this suit.”

Wilson allows that “we need to do a better job of communicating internally” and says the party had to move quickly if it hoped to meet legal deadlines, making it difficult to have a fuller conversation about the decision. Still, the fact that most D.C. Dems learned about the legal challenge when former WAMU/DCist reporter Martin Austermuhle tweeted about it rubbed many the wrong way.

“I just believe it’s a best practice when it comes to leadership, if you have checked in and if you have talked with the other members of your organization and if you have an understanding of what the majority believes,” Nelson says. “If you have communicated with them, then you are able to say, ‘I speak on behalf of this organization.’ You cannot say that if you have not talked to the people.”

Indeed, some RCV supporters believe it was premature for the party to oppose I83 when its membership last formally debated the issue two years ago. Party leaders voted overwhelmingly to oppose the idea back then, as the Council considered legislation on the practice, yet some (but certainly not all) of the activists to speak with LL believe the idea has gained popularity since then.

At the very least, RCV backers hope the vote would be much closer these days, suggesting that it’s not appropriate for the party to take action on an issue that has divided its membership. And several have noted that the party’s never debated the idea of open primaries, which could attract plenty of opposition from ranked choice supporters who nonetheless worry about the influence of Republicans in Democratic primaries.

“We should just be talking about these things more,” says Andria Thomas, an at-large committeewoman and former candidate for shadow senator. “The party currently defers to monthly, two-hour-long meetings that cannot possibly include all the discussions of the issues and our governance that we need to be having.”

Wilson says the discussion about RCV has certainly been “divisive” but, in general, he believes the party is still pretty united in its opposition to the idea. He called it an “unemotional decision” to continue organizing against RCV, basing it on data from wards 7 and 8 that suggest a high rate of under-voting in the city’s confusing at-large Council races. Wilson expects that ranked choice voting would further perplex (and therefore disenfranchise) older Black residents living in neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River. (LL will note, however, that RCV supporters argue persuasively that this sort of argument is dismissive of the intelligence of these voters, and the party establishment has its own, selfish reasons for supporting incumbents and opposing RCV.)

“Our goal is to make sure that people have all the information available to them, so that we can make a sound decision on what’s in the best interests of the District,” Wilson says, arguing that he hopes to continue having conversations among the membership about RCV and other possible electoral reforms moving forward.

The problem for skeptics like Mitchell is that they feel they’ve heard these sorts of promises about open debate from Wilson before and he hasn’t come through. 

Mitchell can rattle off a host of episodes that concerned her and made her feel Wilson was simply acting to advance the interests of the city’s establishment politicians rather than the entire party (and her letter to the chairman with her fellow Ward 3 committee members details them at some length). For instance, Mitchell was frustrated that Wilson “unilaterally” issued a statement opposing the criminal code revisions, a position that aligned directly with Mayor Muriel Bowser but contrary to the vote of all the Democrats on the Council. She felt similarly about his statement criticizing then-At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman for polling the Ward 3 Council race, a position that effectively boosted McDuffie despite his nominal independent status. 

Plus, Mitchell can point to her frustration with the party’s response to an errant anti-union tweet from then-communications consultant Josh Brown, and its tendency to spend on big galas rather than voter outreach. Add all that up, then layer the I83 drama on top of it, and it becomes clear why so many Democrats have grown disillusioned with the party.

“We should be a very strong party organization that’s open to everyone and accessible, and that has just simply not been the case,” Mitchell says. “There aren’t many restrictions in our bylaws in how the chair can act, and I think he’s just taking full advantage of that.”

Wilson says he hopes to keep the conversation going, even with his staunchest critics. Some are hopeful that he is sincere about wanting to change, even if those hopes are not terribly high.

“We should be seeing greater partnership between the citywide D.C. Democratic Party and each of the ward organizations and all these affiliate organizations,” Thomas says. “We should just be leveraging them more together. Right now, we are just a scattered sum of parts, rather than a stronger whole.”