Tom Williams /CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) addresses the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, August 19, 2024. Raskin is poised to take the top Democratic spot on the House Judiciary Committee.
The Democratic Party collapsed this November in no small measure because of the widely held perception that the party is run by an out-of-touch gerontocracy.
Voters view the party this way because it’s plainly true. In 2020, the South Carolina kingmaker Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), 84, cleared the way for the oldest president in modern history, Joe Biden, to win the Democratic primaries. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), an octogenarian herself, played a key role getting grandpa to hand over the car keys in July, which Biden then put in the hands of his vice president Kamala Harris, who despite not even making it to the Iowa caucuses in her failed presidential run was boosted for VP at Clyburn’s behest. In 2023, as some faint calls began for Biden to not run again, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein died in office at the age of 90, after prominent leaders said she was in completely fine condition.
The task ahead for Democrats to revamp their coalition starts with selecting new leaders who at least appear more fit to serve in political office rather than in a senior living home. This fight is already under way and is playing out at virtually every level of the party’s arms and institutions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) are keeping their leadership spots (despite failing to win back majorities in their chambers), but that still leaves other roles to fill.
As Democrats decide committee assignments, a major push has emerged to get elderly leaders of those committees to give up their posts and make way for younger leadership. Two longtime committee leaders have already stepped down, Jeffries is doing nothing to protect the incumbents, and even Pelosi said this week that she supported “some” turnover at the top.
Yet despite all the political tumult, some older members aren’t giving up the spots willingly. Other old guard vs. new guard races have yet to be decided. The ideological crosscurrents embedded in these contests mean that the final decisions will have importance for future legislative prospects, investigations, and reports that Congress will put out for years to come.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD) SECURED the first victory of this changing of the guard by taking the coveted top Democratic slot on the House Judiciary Committee. A constitutional scholar, Raskin rose to national prominence as the lead interrogator during the January 6th hearings and has a loyal base among the party die-hards. He launched a challenge last week to 17-term liberal lion Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) for the Judiciary position, after receiving the blessing of Pelosi behind the scenes. Other than age and a new face, Raskin and Nadler had virtually identical records on core Judiciary Committee issues. Both are notably strong advocates for cracking down on corporate power.
Nadler bowed out this week, clearing the way for Raskin to assume the position. “The Judiciary Committee will be the headquarters of Congressional opposition to authoritarianism and MAGA’s campaign to dismantle our Constitutional system and the rule of law as we know it,” Raskin wrote in a letter announcing the bid.
One blemish on Raskin’s record is that he delivered the deciding vote this year to pass a sweeping government surveillance law, handing the incoming Trump administration new powers to target adversaries. The bill included a controversial provision known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702, allowing intelligence authorities to collect vast amounts of data on foreign citizens that inevitably picks up volumes of communications with Americans. Through a backdoor search, the government can then tap a giant database without a warrant to spy on its own citizens. Critics said language in the law expanded surveillance capabilities and amounted to a second Patriot Act that could be weaponized by a hostile administration.
A major push has emerged to get elderly leaders of committees to give up their posts and make way for younger leadership.
Raskin in previous years had voted in favor of a warrant requirement for American citizens backed by civil liberties advocates. But this year, he caved under pressure from the national-security state and the Biden administration. The final vote was 212-212 with Raskin, flipping from his previous stance, delivering the deciding margin.
FISA is already a dangerous weapon for any administration, but the expanded surveillance authority is now being handed to an incoming administration that has pledged to target political enemies and test the limits of existing law to do so. Raskin is in part responsible for that, and will now be responsible for organizing to fight it.
In order to take the Judiciary slot, Raskin vacated his leadership role at the House Oversight Committee, a powerful perch to launch investigations and hold high-profile hearings into misconduct by the federal government and private-industry actors. In his wake, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), 35, currently the second in line at Oversight, told colleagues this week that she will run to take over Raskin’s spot. She’d have to beat Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), a longtime congressman from a wealthy suburban Virginia district who’s in his seventies.
AOC of course is a favored pick of the progressive wing of the party. One flashpoint distinguishing the two candidates is how they responded to Amazon demanding that cities roll out the red carpet to court their new second headquarters in 2018 with massive state subsidies. AOC very publicly opposed giving public money to Amazon’s site initially planned to go up in Queens. After a long fight, Amazon abandoned the Queens project and went to Arlington, Virginia, which is just next door to Connolly’s district. Connolly welcomed the move, lauding it as good for jobs and local business, never mind the taxpayer subsidies.
Connolly is not in the best physical condition. He announced last year that he has esophageal cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy treatment.
THOUGH THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE is not as high-profile as Judiciary, the stakes are especially high because of the party’s collapse in rural America. Democrats seemingly have no bottom for how poorly they can perform in nonurban and suburban areas. Sen. Jon Tester’s (D-MT) defeat this year was a final blow for a streak of losses Democrats have suffered in rural states that they used to carry or at least compete for.
A new top Democrat could bring a different vision to an agriculture policy that’s failed some of the most impoverished and underdeveloped areas in the country. The contest offers a chance for either progressive change or a retreat back to the center.
At 79 years old, the current lead Democrat, Rep. David Scott (D-GA), exemplifies the party’s sunsetting image. He’s had extensive health problems that have impacted his ability to lead the committee, forcing him to miss stretches of time and crucial votes during the negotiations of the stalled farm bill package. In 2022, lawmakers publicly aired concerns, during his last bid to keep the ranking membership.
This time around, there’s a more concerted effort to have him step down. The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, opted not to endorse him this week, which is a major blow to his standing.
Scott has not said he’ll step down yet, even though it’s becoming more clear he won’t have the votes to prevail. Whether he remains in the race, however, could determine who will replace him.
Two challengers have thrown their hat into the ring: Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), a longtime Ag Committee member who at 72 isn’t exactly a spring chicken compared to Scott, and Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), 52, who is running mostly on a platform of a newer generation of leadership.
A new top Democrat could bring a different vision to an agriculture policy that’s failed some of the most impoverished and underdeveloped areas in the country.
Neither the New Democrats nor the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the two largest Democratic caucuses in the House, have officially made endorsements. Both Craig and Costa made their pitch to the CPC this week.
Besides age, there are clear fault lines between the candidates on policy issues.
Costa has been one of Big Ag’s most loyal servants on the committee during a number of high-profile clashes over the years.
The most prominent took place during the Obama administration, when the USDA tried to update the Packers and Stockyards Act, a landmark antitrust law protecting farmers from predatory anti-competitive actions by large meatpackers.
PSA was at the time administered by a body within USDA called the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). In 2010, USDA proposed new rules that would shore up loopholes in the law that had developed over time, to ensure that meatpackers couldn’t exploit growing contracts with farmers, saddle farmers with piles of debt, or retaliate against farmers who spoke out.
Big Ag of course went ballistic about the rules, and pulled out all the stops to neuter them before they could get finalized into law. They turned to Congress to do the dirty work of waging pressure on the administration.
First, the House Agriculture Committee called a hearing to admonish the lead rulemakers at GIPSA. They claimed the department was not heeding the wisdom of the industry’s public comments about the rule’s potential harms to their bottom line. Joining House Republicans in this hostile interrogation was Jim Costa, a major recipient of campaign cash from the meatpacking giants and their various trade groups, like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The industry’s talking points were repeated ad nauseam directly by the congressman.
Then, in 2011, Costa joined the Republican chair of the committee in sending what amounted to a cease and desist letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to terminate the rulemaking. “[W]e are confident that any such rule will not be looked upon favorably by Congress,” the letter read.
The rules were never finalized by the USDA during Obama’s two terms, in large part because of industry pressure aided and abetted by Congress. For years, House Republicans blocked any funding to carry out the rules, and by the time that lifted, Vilsack never finalized them. Trump’s ag secretary Sonny Perdue then canceled the rules and dismantled GIPSA for good measure.
Costa has not backed away from carrying water for the ag industry. In this year’s farm bill, he’s the lead sponsor on an amendment being pushed by the pesticide industry to shield them from state lawsuits. The measure would federally preempt state-level health and environmental regulations that Bayer, one of the Big Four seed and pesticide companies, is being sued for violating. Bayer has spent enormous sums lobbying this year to push the amendment, among other reforms in the farm bill.
The amendment was included in an earlier version of the farm bill, but its status is currently in limbo during the ongoing negotiations.
Rep. Craig did initially sign on to that bill. Her office did not respond to a request for comment about whether she still supports it. As a newer member elected in 2018, Craig doesn’t have as extensive a record on many ag issues, which could actually work to her benefit as the party tries to chart a new course on farming and rural policy.
She’s a strong defender of food stamp benefits and is likely to get the support of the Progressive Caucus, though the body is still deliberating.
THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE is in the midst of a shake-up as well. Aging current top Democrat Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) is stepping down, amid health problems and a cancer diagnosis. He has already announced that the next term will be his last.
In the vacuum, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) launched a bid to be Grijalva’s successor. Huffman is a Northern California congressman and a close ally of Nancy Pelosi.
However, Grijalva this week endorsed Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) for the top Democrat on the committee over Huffman, setting up another clash. “The next four years will be a fight against Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ plan,” Grijalva said in a statement. “House Natural Resources will be the frontline of this fight, and I am confident Rep. Stansbury is the right person to lead this critical committee.”
Rep. Stansbury is a recent member elected in 2021; she replaced Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in Congress. Huffman has been in Congress since 2013. Huffman is 60; Stansbury is 45. Both are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but Stansbury is more closely associated with the progressive flank of the party. Stansbury led a letter with AOC and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) this year urging stronger climate measures from the Biden administration.
