As House Democrats plot out their committee moves for the next Congress, they are grappling with questions of age and seniority. Two ranking members have already stepped aside after facing younger challengers, and at least one other is trying to ward off that fate.
Fresh energy is needed to do battle in the Trump era, the challengers say, and reckon with their party’s loss in the November elections.
It seems like the second act of a play that began a couple years ago, when Nancy Pelosi relinquished her top Democratic leadership spot at the age of 82, allowing Hakeem Jeffries to ascend.
But what it means for a caucus that has long prized seniority remains to be seen. Some of the rising hopefuls would not bring a generational shift, with hair only slightly less gray than their elders. And other longtime committee bosses are likely to stay put.
On Wednesday, Jerrold Nadler of New York announced he would cede his role as Judiciary Committee ranking member and endorsed his challenger, Jamie Raskin of Maryland. Assuming Raskin doesn’t face a challenger of his own, his move will open the top Democratic spot on House Oversight.
On Tuesday, Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia launched his bid for the open seat with a letter to his colleagues, while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told reporters she might be interested in running. Ro Khanna of California could also potentially jump in.
After Jared Huffman of California declared his intention for the top spot on the Natural Resources Committee, the current ranking member, Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, said he would step aside in an announcement that notably declined to endorse Huffman. Since then, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico signaled her own candidacy and received Grijalva’s endorsement.
Ranking member David Scott of Georgia faces two challengers for the spot of top Democrat on Agriculture — Jim Costa of California and Angie Craig of Minnesota both have made bids to replace the 79-year-old.
Additionally, Susan Wild’s loss in November means the House Ethics ranking member position is open, although that is a posting few members clamor for. CQ Roll Call asked the four other Democrats currently on the committee — Veronica Escobar of Texas, Mark DeSaulnier of California, Glenn F. Ivey of Maryland and Deborah K. Ross of North Carolina — about their interest in the position. Only DeSaulnier responded as of Thursday afternoon, saying, “I am looking forward to serving where I can best be of help in restoring ethics and trust in democracy, which is my top priority.”
Health concerns have driven the contests for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Grijalva missed much of the past year while receiving cancer treatments and recently announced his plans to leave Congress after his next term. His illness also limited his ability to raise party funds, which is expected of committee leaders. Huffman sought to highlight Grijalva’s relatively weak fundraising and dues paid to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as part of his challenge.
Similarly, Scott has missed votes repeatedly due to his health, including significant back issues, and his fundraising has lagged. Some Democrats tried to quietly nudge him out of the top Agriculture Committee spot two years ago over similar concerns, according to reporting by Politico at the time. Scott only took the position in 2020, beating out Costa for the gavel.
Trying again to lead Agriculture Democrats, Costa, 72 and in his 10th term, is himself no spring chicken. Craig, 52, would be a significantly younger ranking member and, if picked by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, would jump over a handful of other Democrats with longer tenures on Agriculture.
The Steering Committee will meet on Tuesday to consider some ranking member nominations, and will meet again on Dec. 16 to make its remaining recommendations, including in the contested races, according to a letter sent to colleagues by the steering co-chairs.
While seeing three incumbent ranking members challenged for their seat is unusual, it’s tough to say this is the start of a trend, said David Karol, a political science professor at the University of Maryland. Who Democrats pick to succeed these committee leaders matters as much as the question of whether to replace them, he said.
“The thing to look at is not just if the senior person is pushed out, but who replaces them,” Karol said. “If they pick the next person in line, then seniority is still respected. But if they pick someone way down or even off committee, then no.”
Even if the younger candidates were to prevail, it would mark only a marginal shift in the age and experience among the Democratic leaders of 21 panels in the House. On average, the current set of ranking members are 70 years old and have spent 24 years serving in Congress. Were the Democrats to choose the youngest probable contender in the contested or open committee races mentioned above, those averages could drop to 64 years old and 21 years in Congress, barring other shakeups.
Outgoing ranking members Nadler and Grijalva are both baby boomers, born in 1947 and 1948, respectively. Hopefuls Raskin, born in 1962, and Huffman, born in 1964, also squeak under the wire of the boomer generation.
Democrats have historically respected seniority more than Republicans, who impose a three-term limit on top committee spots (although exceptions are made). That leads to more turnover at the top, said Karol, and often more GOP chairs and ranking members deciding to retire after their six years leading a committee.
Still, Democrats have never been handcuffed to the seniority norm when concerns about age, efficacy or political congruence have cropped up. Karol noted how Marcy Kaptur of Ohio was bypassed for the Appropriations chair in favor of the more junior but more liberal Nita Lowey in 2012 and then Rosa DeLauro in 2020.
“The seniority norm has been in decline,” he said. “Parties can make these decisions. Seniority isn’t a rule of the House, it is not a law, it’s not in the Constitution. It’s a norm and custom.”
That custom has long helped intraparty blocs who hold safe seats. In the 1960s and early ’70s, southern Democrats held a near monopoly on committee gavels. That gave way after the 1974 election, which brought a wave of liberal “Watergate babies” who flushed the old guard from power.
As Democratic strongholds moved to diverse urban centers, seniority has been a boon to the identity-based blocs, such as the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Those groups have mostly resisted previous attempts to change how Democrats pick committee heads, saying seniority is key to ensuring that racial minorities in the House can steadily advance and build power, instead of being skipped over in popularity contests or fundraising battles that may contain bias. But it’s not clear how that will play out in the current committee reshuffle.
Even though Scott is a member of the CBC, and the Agriculture Committee’s first Black chair, the group has not yet formally endorsed his bid.
The post Seniority shakeup? House Democrats test committee norms appeared first on Roll Call.
