CIVPAC endorses Democrat James Byrd for the United States Senate in Wyoming. It is an endorsement we make with substantial reservations.
Byrd is personally appealing, experienced in Wyoming state government, and considerably closer to CIVPAC on several important questions of constitutional government and public policy than his Republican opponent, Representative Harriet Hageman. But after reviewing his positions and watching him debate, we also have serious doubts about whether Byrd currently demonstrates the breadth of knowledge and policy sophistication we would like to see in a United States senator.
Ordinarily, that would make an endorsement difficult.
What tips the balance is Hageman’s record.
Constitutional Government Matters
Hageman is plainly the more polished and accomplished of the two candidates. She is an experienced attorney, has served in Congress, understands the federal government, and presents her arguments effectively.
But competence is not enough.
Hageman speaks frequently about restoring constitutional limits on government, particularly by reducing the power of federal agencies. We agree that Congress has delegated too much authority to the executive branch. The difficulty is that her concern about executive overreach appears much less pronounced when the executive exercising that power is President Donald Trump. During a July Wyoming Senate forum, for example, Hageman framed the shift of legislative power toward the executive primarily as a problem of Congress delegating authority to federal agencies and unelected bureaucrats.
On February 11, 2026, Hageman voted against H.J. Res. 72, the House resolution terminating the national emergency Trump used to impose tariffs on Canada. The resolution nevertheless passed 219–211, with six Republicans joining Democrats. Hageman has also repeatedly voted against resolutions asserting Congress’s constitutional authority over the use of American military forces, including War Powers resolutions concerning Iran in June and July 2026.
Those votes matter to the Centrist Independent Voter. The Constitution gives Congress important responsibilities over taxation, commerce, spending, and decisions involving war. Those powers should not expand or contract depending upon which party controls the White House.
Hageman’s record concerning the 2020 election is still more troubling. During her successful 2022 campaign against Liz Cheney, she said the election had been “rigged” to prevent Trump’s reelection and at another point said Americans could not know whether Joe Biden had been legitimately elected. We regard acceptance of legitimate election results as a basic requirement of democratic government.
Trump initially backed Hageman as the candidate who could defeat Cheney, and he has strongly endorsed her Senate campaign as well. Political endorsements alone do not disqualify a candidate. But Hageman’s voting record gives us little confidence that she would provide an independent congressional check on a president with whom she is politically aligned.
Byrd Is Closer to the Kind of Senator We Want — But Not the Senator We Would Ideally Want
Byrd takes a substantially different approach.
He argues directly that Congress has surrendered too much authority to presidents and says senators should not become a presidential “rubber stamp.” On immigration, he combines border enforcement with reform of legal immigration and the immigration courts. He has demonstrated an ability to work with Republicans during his years in the overwhelmingly Republican Wyoming legislature. Byrd served ten years in the Wyoming House, including as minority whip and minority caucus leader, and says that serving in such a small minority required regular bipartisan cooperation.
He supports continued development of Wyoming’s traditional energy resources while recognizing opportunities in advanced nuclear power, minerals, and modernization of the electric grid. His WyoFile questionnaire specifically points to advanced nuclear technology and Wyoming’s TerraPower Natrium project as opportunities for economic diversification while retaining traditional energy employment.
We do not agree with him on everything. His defense of unusually inexpensive federal grazing privileges is difficult to reconcile with our belief that commercial users of public lands generally should pay something reasonably approximating market value. In the Democratic debate, Byrd specifically defended continued “low cost” federal leases as important to the profitability and survival of legacy ranches. We also remain unconvinced by some of his economic-policy proposals.
More troubling, however, was his performance in the Democratic primary debate. Byrd at times appeared poorly prepared for the responsibilities of the office he is seeking. His discussion of congressional committees revealed a surprising lack of familiarity with basic institutional details: when asked which Senate committees suited his background, he named Ways and Means, which is a House committee, and substantially misdescribed its function. Some of his answers on emerging technologies and other national issues likewise lacked the sophistication we expect from a senator.
We cannot pretend otherwise simply because we prefer many of his positions.
Why We Endorse Him Anyway
Wyoming voters therefore face an unusual choice.
Hageman is clearly the more professionally prepared candidate. But on questions we regard as fundamental—the peaceful transfer of power, congressional independence, presidential war powers, tariffs imposed through emergency authority, and resistance to excessive executive power—her record is deeply troubling.
Byrd is less prepared than we would like, but his instincts about constitutional government are substantially healthier. His decade in the Wyoming legislature also suggests that he understands the practical necessity of compromise and working across party lines.
We do not expect James Byrd to defeat Harriet Hageman. Wyoming is one of the most Republican states in the country. In the unlikely event that he does win, there are resources available to bring him up to speed. There are substitutes for gaps in policy sophistication. There are no substitutes for institutional integrity.
But elections do more than select winners. They also tell elected officials what voters will tolerate.
CIVPAC would like Hageman, if she becomes Wyoming’s next senator, to arrive in Washington having received a clear message: constitutional limits apply to Republican presidents as well as Democratic ones; Congress is an independent branch of government, not an extension of the White House; and loyalty to a political leader is not a substitute for loyalty to constitutional institutions.
For those reasons, and with genuine reservations about his readiness for the office, CIVPAC endorses James Byrd for the United States Senate.