A Rose Garden Resolution: "Stop the Spoilers: For the Expulsion of Spoiler Candidates"
Presenting The Rose Garden's first-ever collective resolution
The Rose Garden is pleased to announce our first-ever collective DSA resolution, written by TRG members Alyaza B, Roxanne R, and Sylus S, and with editing and wording input from several other members of the server!
Our intent with this resolution, entitled “Stop the Spoilers: For the Expulsion of Spoiler Candidates,” is to resolve the ongoing—and growing—problem of non-endorsed DSA members continuing their campaigns against chapter-endorsed or nationally-endorsed DSA candidates and potentially spoiling these democratically-deliberated candidacies. The resolution, if approved, creates a process for expelling such members if their campaign hinders the election of any chapter- or nationally-endorsed DSA candidate.
We are collecting signatures on this resolution because we believe it reflects popular sentiment within DSA, and is therefore worthy of being considered and implemented by the National Political Committee as soon as this is possible. In the event this is not possible, we intend to bring this resolution to National Convention next year.
We additionally publish this resolution so that—in the absence of NPC or future National Convention approval—chapters can take initiative and codify it (or variations of it which reflect local conditions) within their own bylaws. A copy of the resolution as currently written on the morning of August 13, 2026 can be found below.
Please sign the resolution (here) if you are in agreement with it—and make sure to share the resolution around within your chapter and among your fellow DSA members.
Stop the Spoilers: For the Expulsion of Spoiler Candidates
Authors: Alyaza B, Roxanne R, & Sylus S
Whereas,
DSA endorsements reflect the democratic will of the membership, and a basic principle of collective organization is respecting democratically agreed upon work
In contravention of this democratically agreed upon work, the number of DSA members running without their chapter’s endorsement against a chapter endorsee has grown
There have now been multiple examples of non-endorsed members running against—or even spoiling the potential victory of—DSA-endorsed candidates, including but not limited to:
The June 23rd, 2026 Democratic primary for New York Assembly District 34, in which NYC-DSA members Aber Kawas and Brian Romero both sought chapter endorsement
The Queens branch of NYC-DSA voted 64%-29% to endorse Aber Kawas instead of Brian Romero
In open contravention of this vote, Brian Romero continued to run for Assembly District 34, creating a contentious primary that split the socialist and progressive vote of the assembly district between him and Kawas
To resolve this situation Aber Kawas was compelled to switch districts, instead running for New York State Senate District 12.
The June 23rd, 2026 Democratic primary for Utah State Senate District 13, in which Salt Lake DSA member Evan Done ran against Salt Lake DSA endorsee Taylor Paden and came in 2nd and 3rd place respectively
The winner of the Utah State Senate District 13 Democratic primary Silvia Catten won with 44.1% of the vote, while Evan Done and Taylor Paden received 32.8% and 23.0% respectively
A consolidated vote between Evan Done and Taylor Paden would have exceeded Catten’s vote total and won the election
The August 12th, 2026 Democratic primary for Wisconsin Assembly District 76, in which Madison DSA members Zoe Sullivan and Isaia Ben-Ami likely prevented Madison DSA endorsee Juliana Bennett from succeeding Francesca Hong
Madison DSA-endorsee Julianna Bennett came in second with [25.9%] of the vote while Madison DSA members Isaia Ben-Ami and Zoe Sullivan received [21.9%] and [6.4%] of the vote respectively
Madison DSA members Isaia Ben-Ami and Zoe Sullivan continued running for Wisconsin Assembly District 76 after Juliana Bennett’s endorsement by Madison DSA
Candidate for Wisconsin Assembly District 76 Dina Martinez-Rutherford—who also joined Madison DSA after Juliana Bennett’s endorsement by Madison DSA—went on to win the primary with [29.1%] of the vote
Either one of Isaia Ben-Ami or Zoe Sullivan’s consolidated vote total with endorsee Julianna Bennet would have been sufficient for Bennett to win
These examples demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect, by non-endorsed members, for the democratically agreed upon work that is necessary from all DSA members to ensure both present and future comradely cooperation in any and all political interventions
These examples have additionally served to undermine said democratically agreed upon work, and furthermore to disorganize our membership; disrupt our ability to win elections; inhibit us from acting as a cohesive political bloc; and weaken our organization as a whole
Ultimately, the decision of any one member to run against any DSA-endorsed candidate is an inexcusable jeopardizing of our organization’s social contract, and inhibits our broader ability to politically organize and make necessary political interventions in our communities
Therefore be it resolved,
that any DSA member—regardless of previous endorsement status—who is credibly shown to:
knowingly enter an election against one or more DSA-endorsed candidates; or
continue their candidacy in an election without, or after failing to receive, the endorsement of their DSA chapter for said election;
and additionally proceeds to:
engage in one or both of these acts such that their candidacy may hinder the electing of one or more DSA-endorsed candidates (through actions including, but not limited to, failing to cross-endorse DSA-endorsed candidates in a ranked-choice or multi-winner election, running attack ads against a DSA-endorsed candidate, or splitting the election vote)
shall be considered as engaging in one or both of “substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization” and “undemocratic, disruptive behavior,” as per Article 1, Section 3 of the DSA Bylaws, thereby committing an expellable offense as outlined in Article 3, Section 4 of the DSA Constitution, which states that a member credibly shown to have engaged in any of the above may “be expelled [by] a two-thirds (⅔) vote of all members of the National Political Committee.”
Be it further resolved,
If an election has no DSA-endorsed candidates, then DSA members shall not be punished under this resolution for running even if they run against another DSA member.
If an election allows the ranking of candidates, then it shall only constitute “hindering” for a non-endorsed member to run without official DSA endorsement against a DSA-endorsed candidate when said non-endorsed member refuses to cross-endorse; antagonizes; or in some way explicitly opposes the election of a DSA-endorsed candidate.
If an election has multiple winners, and the number of DSA-endorsed candidates for said election is lower than the number of winners, then it shall only constitute “hindering” for a non-endorsed member to run without official DSA endorsement against a DSA-endorsed candidate when said non-endorsed member antagonizes; attacks; or in some way explicitly opposes the election of a DSA-endorsed candidate.
To sign our resolution, please click here.
(You must be a dues-paying DSA member to sign)
If you’re interested in writing resolutions with the Rose Garden, participating in reading discussions, and/or chatting with like-minded folks, make sure to join DSA and fill out the Rose Garden interest form!
Want to discuss this resolution with other DSA members? Visit the DSA Forums thread! Create an account at optin.dsausa.org.
I have long read and admired the Rose Garden perspective, but oppose this resolution stenuously for several reasons:
First, it sets a terrible precedent for viewing convention resolutions as examples of "principles and policies" for purposes of expulsion. That could have all sort of terrible repurcussions that undermine internal freedom of expression in DSA.
Second, in our representative democracy, people represent the voters, not DSA. Your proposed resolution assumes DSA members who run for office must be "cadre candidate" who run at the behest of DSA. Voters won't support such an idea; we are lucky there wasn't more discussion of the whole "cadre candidate" notion in some of the electoral victories of DSA members.
Third, in 2023 I wrote a Big Tent Resolution which explicity defined "principles and policies" as the Purposes Section. DSA North Star endorsed it along with some members of other caucuses and non-caucused DSA members. But it fell just short of the required numbers of signatures for discussion at the convention.
Fourth, your resolution could (a) discourage DSA members from running for office and (b) lead to DSA electeds resigning from DSA and (c) encourage hardline-controlled chapters to run "cadre" candidates against DSA elected on ground they aren't radical enough.
Still, the problems you point out are very real. This is why I have long contended that DSA should not endorse candidate at all! It should encouge electonal political action by its members, always have electoral work on its meeting agendas, sponsor and co-sponsor candidate forums, but not act "as if" it were a political party.
DSA members should be free to vote for, work for, and individually endorse the candidates of their choice and/or candidates supported by our unions, professional associations and issue-oriented organizations, without worrying they are at cross purposes with DSA. What would be next, a 2029 resolution calling for expulsion of members who endorse candidates who are not DSA-endorsed?