Atypical political candidates, such as those from ethnic, racial and immigration (ERI) minorities (vs. majority), are more likely to be chosen for hard‐to‐win seats than easy‐to‐win seats, a phenomenon known as the political glass cliff. This research aimed to uncover how the ERI status of decision makers played a role in this process. We hypothesised the emergence of a glass cliff pattern, that is, the preference for an ERI minority candidate over an ERI majority candidate for a hard‐to‐win seat, particularly among ERI minority participants, which are likely to perceive greater electoral potential in the ERI minority candidate compared to majority participants. Across two scenario‐based experiments (Study 1: N  = 264; Study 2: N  = 375), ERI minority and majority participants played the role of political party leaders and made decisions regarding candidate nominations either in easy‐to‐win or in hard‐to‐win electoral districts. In Study 1, ERI minority participants, but not ERI majority participants, were more likely to choose an ERI minority (vs. majority) candidate for hard‐to‐win seats. Moreover, ERI minority participants made stronger attributions of change potential, competence and communion to ERI minority (vs. majority) candidates, suggesting that intra‐minority solidarity could play a role in their choice. Although this result did not replicate in Study 2, exploratory analyses revealed a consistent glass cliff pattern among ERI minority men in both studies. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement .