Next-Gen Politics: Recalibrating Representation
Sanders | CLMI
The upcoming 2026 Congressional midterms presents opportunity for public discussion on term limits, representation in Congress and the net worth of the candidates running. A good place to start: Term limits.
How long should Members of Congress serve? While House terms carry for 2-years and Senate terms carry for 6-years, there is no current limit on the number of terms a person can serve. If presidents are limited to two four-year terms why not the legislative branch? The vast majority of Americans, across party lines and ideologies, express extreme dissatisfaction with that current arrangement, with many calling for the immediate institution of term limits. As a 2023 Pew survey found, 87% of adults favored universal term limits on Members of Congress, along with 74% demanding a maximum age limit for those same elected officials, and the same number (74%) saying age limits should apply to Supreme Court Justices, as well …
Similar sentiments are expressed in a 2023 University of Maryland poll …
Interestingly enough, contrary to popular notions on the issue, a greater percentage of voters ages 65+ approve of term limits according to a 2025 Mclaughlin and Associates poll, with fewer Black voters than white and Latino voters approving. Fewer Democrats agree to term limits compared to Republicans …
The Role Of Representation
Representation has a huge role in how government responds to political challenges, constituent needs, and policy decisions. But can diversity in Congress lead to better representation?
A 2019 study by Kenneth Luwande at the University of Michigan study finds this is the case …
We find significant differences in the intervention patterns of female, minority, and veteran legislators that suggest descriptive representation leads to substantive representation in Congress. In each case, we find that in a given Congress, legislators are around 6-9 percentage points more likely to contact federal agencies on behalf of constituents with whom they share background characteristics, when compared to their non-veteran, male, or white colleagues. The differences are most striking for women and men in Congress, where being represented by a female legislator is associated with a 40% increase in the probability of relevant service. These differences are robust after accounting for factors influencing the selection of legislators, consistent across multiple measures of representation, and remain when limiting the analysis to split-representation delegations in the U.S. Senate—a context that holds legislative district constant.
Despite that, women and historically marginalized populations are generally underrepresented in Congress. Women ages 25 and older represent 51% of the overall U.S. population, yet at 150 Representatives and Senators combined, they are just 28% of the U.S. Congress, with very little change between this current Congress and the last, as Pew reports …
Racial representation in Congress offers a somewhat different story, with the current Congress being the most racially and ethnically diverse than its ever been. For a few racial groups, representation in Congress is proportional or near proportional to their percentage of the U.S. population. For example, 14% of U.S. House members identify as Black, which is identical to the size of the overall U.S. Black population. The 1% representation of Native and Alaskan Americans matches their overall percentage in the U.S. population. However, Latinos are woefully underrepresented in Congress: 11% Congressional representation versus 20% of the U.S. population). And while Asian Americans are 6% of the population, they are just 4% of Congressional membership.
This creates an imbalance that also spreads out over age and the resistance from legislators themselves to term limits in the legislative branch. Over 49% of senators are men over the age of 60, compared to the 7% of senators who are women 60 years old or younger.
Some experts argue that seniority may play a part in American political dysfunction and polarization, thereby leading to policymaking paralysis. Occasionally, Members of Congress violate laws or find themselves wrapped in scandals, yet many often seem untouched by rule of law. This can exacerbate public trust in government.
Access To Run
Another factor in this debate is accessibility. While Congressional candidates must be 25 years of age and a resident for over 7 years, (and a current resident at the time of election) most are nearly double that age. Why are there older candidates? A 2022 study by Damon Roberts at the University of Colorado and Jennifer Wolack at the University of Michigan shows a slight voter preference for older candidates with a twist ....
We find that people tend to see younger candidates as less experienced, less qualified, and less conservative than older candidates. However, we find few differences in people’s willingness to support a younger candidate than an older candidate. In fact, when looking at patterns of approval in Congress, people report more negative ratings of older members of Congress rather than younger ones. The over-representation of older voices in Washington likely reflects structural factors like incumbency that favor the success of older politicians, rather than the demands of the electorate.
Most Americans tend to vote for older candidates because they think that equates to experience. Many cultures have adapted to this way of thinking (“respect your elders” as the saying goes).
But what’s often overlooked is that most elected officials have careers before deciding to campaign and nearly half of U.S. House and Senate members have a net worth “of at least $1 million” according to the most available data from OpenSecrets.org. Most Americans not only tend to vote for the candidates who are older because we think that equates to experience, but there is some evidence they’re preferring candidates perceived as wealthy, competent and stable - and maybe that’s not a preference as much as it is the only options available. And as humans, we will also gravitate towards those we think have more experience.
Not only is the minimum age requirement to run for Congress in many cases prohibitive due to the financial uncertainty young people are faced with today, public perspectives shift when voters understand why young people don’t apply. Some may fail to show interest, but others who are just don’t have the money. As the Brennan Center’s Maria Ortegon observed in a 2023 brief …
While the rules allow campaign funds to be used for a candidate’s salary, that amount is capped at whatever the candidate earned in the previous year, up to the salary for the office the candidate is seeking. So a bartender who made $20,000 in the prior year can only pay herself that much while on the campaign trail, whereas a stockbroker who made $140,000 can pay herself seven times more.
Worse, a full-time caregiver who didn’t receive any income is simply out of luck — she can’t pay herself anything, and like Grechen Shirley would likely have to get special permission even to use campaign funds to care for children or other dependents while she is out campaigning. The rules disproportionately burden candidates who are women, LGBTQ+, working class, or people of color — individuals who are already less likely to have accumulated wealth that they can fall back on while running a campaign.
How can government work more effectively? Is it just term limits? Or is greater racial and women representation? Could it simply be opening up doors for those with limited means to run? Perhaps it’s a combination of all of the above and more
LE’LANI SANDERS is a Fellow with the Civic Literacy and Media Influence Institute at Learn4Life
