House Democrats Just Snubbed the First Black Woman Who Would Have Held Key Leadership Post

Progressives lost their first fight.

Rep. Barbara Lee heads to a forum for freshmen Democrats at the Capitol in Washington on Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2018.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus lobbied hard for Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) to serve as Democratic Caucus Chair and become the first black woman to serve in House leadership. But in a vote late Wednesday morning, Rep. Hakeem Jefferies (N.Y.) defeated Lee with only ten votes. Her loss was a disappointment for progressives who had hoped the 10-term incumbent would make history with her ascent into a key leadership position.

Lee has been a reliably progressive fixture since she came to Congress nearly 20 years ago, and her commitment to those ideals has been cited by several younger House members as a model for what they hope to achieve as elected officials. The possibility she might become the Caucus chair mobilized a coalition of some of the most prominent progressive organizations, such as Indivisible and MoveOn and Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders Reps. Mark Pocan (Wisc.) and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.). They had been among those meeting with House members to garner support for Lee. Earlier today, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old representative-elect from Queens, posted a passionate Instagram story that described casting a vote for Lee as ā€œa rare and treasured opportunityā€ that ā€œhonors a lifetime of work.ā€

But 123 House Democrats cast their ballots for Jeffries, a black three-term congressman who represents New York’s 8th district, which covers Brooklyn and Queens. He’s often cited as a rising star in the Democratic Party and several have observed that he’s a strong contender to succeed Pelosi as the House’s Democratic leader when she eventually retires.

A victory for Lee, who also narrowly lost an election for Democratic caucus vice chair in 2016, was allegedly all but a done deal months ago. But a demand for fresh faces in the leadership teamā€”especially faces younger than those of current leaders Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Steny Hoyer (Md.), and Jim Clyburn (S.C.), who are all nearly 80ā€”was a point of agreement between incoming House Democrats and the incumbent faction opposing Pelosiā€™s return to the speakership. Jeffries, who is 48, more obviously satisfied that desire than 72-year-old Lee.

ā€œHonestly, the general conversation about new faces was a significant part of it,ā€ Pocan told Mother Jones after the vote. ā€œI did a lot of talking to members, and the feeling in general was that we want new people to have spots.ā€ He mentioned Beto Oā€™Rourke, the 46-year old Texas congressman who left the House to unsuccessfully challenge Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as an example of someone who sought higher office in the face of few opportunities for advancement in the House.

Speaking with a group of reporters after the vote on Wednesday morning, Jayapal disagreed with that line of reasoning. ā€œI take some issue with generational change being just about age,ā€ she said. “I think it should be about ideas that resonate with young people across the country, and I think Barbara Lee is that person.ā€

A win for Lee would also have been signal to the women, Jayapal noted, especially women of color who had been both successful Democratic candidates and key constituencies for Democrats this last cycle. ā€œI think [Lee] faced a lot of what we women of color face, which is everybody’s about the idea of women of color, but then when it actually comes to electing one, then you find that there’s a big change,ā€ she said. ā€œI think that we changed that across the country, but I think we got some work to do to change it here.ā€

That is not to suggest that Jefferies, who is also a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is a poor substitute, a point both Jayapal and Pocan emphasized in their conversations with me. ā€œThe good news is both are CPC members,ā€ Pocan tells me. ā€œThe difference that a lot of us look at is that Barbara has been a stalwart in the progressive movement.ā€ He adds that the CPC has other opportunities for its members to find its way into leadership. Katherine Clark (Mass.) is running to serve as Assistant Democratic Caucus Chair, and David Cicilline (R.I.) is running for Democratic Policy and Communications chair, a newly created leadership position that will shape the House Democrats messaging.

But Leeā€™s loss puts a bit more of the onus on the CPC to educate House leadership on the ambitious slate of initiatives theyā€™re planning for the next Congress, and the means by which theyā€™ll achieve themā€”which relies heavily on grassroots infrastructure progressive organizations built over the course of the 2018 cycle. ā€œI think it would have been easier with Barbara because Barbara really gets inside-outside strategy,ā€ Jayapal tells me. ā€œI think we have to work to make sure that Hakeem also understands the power of inside-outside organizing and develops that kind of trust with the progressive groups across the country.ā€

The next challenge facing the CPC is to place new and incumbent members onto key committees like Ways and Means and Appropriations. The move had been a key commitment CPC leaders received from Pelosi before declaring their support of her speakership: CPC members, who now account for 40 percent of all House Democrats, were granted proportionate representation on influential committees.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate