We Have to Talk about Eleanor

Democrats have an age problem. I don't like saying that because it goes against two principles in which I believe: we should respect our elders, and age should not be a basis for discrimination. But it cannot be denied that the age of many Democratic politicians has been harmful to the party. In the eight months of this Congressional session alone, three Democratic Members of Congress have passed away. That would have been enough votes to defeat Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. In the District of Columbia, we have our own age problem with which to deal. That is our Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Currently 88 years old, Norton has repeatedly told reporters that she plans to run for her seat again, though her staff has later walked back those claims. Regardless of her future plans, at this moment when the District government is facing potentially existential threats from cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. At a time when D.C. is occupied by armed National Guard troops (many from conservative Southern states), has federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies running rampant, and has had its police force taken over by the federal government, our lone representative in Congress is nowhere to be seen.

Norton has represented the District as a non-voting Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives since 1991. A native of Washington, Norton's first involvement in politics was as an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. As a college student, Norton was arrested several times for participating in sit-ins. In 1964, Norton travelled to Mississippi, where she worked with Medgar Evers and other civil rights heroes. Norton had a stint as the assistant legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and then held several civil rights positions at various levels of government. In Congress, Norton has been a staunch supporter of D.C. statehood and a tireless advocate for the District's interests. Norton has deservedly achieved near folkhero status in the District. However, as has been the case with many of her colleagues in Congress, Norton has had trouble understanding when it is time to pass the torch. While we rightly honor Norton, representation at the federal level for D.C. is so scarce that we simply cannot afford to have one of the few available positions occupied by someone who, by all appearances, can no longer carry out the duties and responsibilities of the office.

Earlier this month, Politico had an article about Norton's lack of visibility. As the article noted, Norton "has not been seen in public or otherwise interacted with the media since, even as other elected Democrats stepped forward to defend Washington’s autonomy against Trump’s aggressive new actions." While this was written over two weeks ago, nothing has changed. As the article notes, Norton has not joined other District political leaders for press conferences or public appearances and even failed to sign a joint statement by Congressional Democrats criticizing the federal takeover of D.C.'s police. A person close to Norton was quoted anonymously as saying that Norton was intentionally being low-key in order not to provoke Trump. But, "low-key" does not mean invisible. For all of her adult life, Norton has been known as a fighter. At this moment when D.C. needs a fighter, she has disappeared. A sad illustration of this point is Norton's X feed which is topped by a pinned tweet saying, "There are no exceptions and there is no middle ground on DC’s right to self-government." While the message might be relevant today, the tweet is from March 2023 and the included photo shows Norton dressed in a winter coat, emphasizing that it is not current. Where is that fighting spirit today?

In many regards, Norton's seat should have been fairly easy pickings for a challenger for some time. D.C.'s population has changed significantly over the more than three decades that she has held the office. Not as many voters are familiar with her long history, and many are ready for change. But few politicians have been willing to challenge her. Even now, when the need for fresh blood could not be more clear, there is no big-name challenger. Ballotpedia lists four individuals who have apparently filed to run against her. In alphabetical order, they are Gordon Chaffin, Jerry McClairn Jr., Angel Rios, and Kinney Zalesne. I pay fairly close attention to D.C. local politics, and I am not familiar with a single one of these candidates. Given the almost universal (within D.C.) name recognition of Norton, not having name recognition themselves is a massive hurdle for opponents.

I could not find a website for Gordon Chaffin. Instead, I located an Instagram page on which he mentions that he owns a dog care business and leads a community non-profit. Neither could I find a website for Jerry McClairn Jr. It appears that he has a LinkedIn page, but since I don't have a LinkedIn account, I couldn't read it. On Ballotpedia, McClairn has a short statement in which he describes himself as a "business owner that believes DC has way too many people telling DC residents and the world what DC needs." Angel Rios is another candidate for whom I could not locate a website. I did find an Instagram page, but that describes him as a "Fmr. Congressional Cand.". So, I am not sure what to make of that. I would submit that none of these efforts are going to get it done. If someone like me has not only not heard of you before, but cannot learn anything significant now, you are probably not a credible candidate. Unfortunately, this is the caliber of opposition that Norton has tended to face.

Kinney Zalesne, on the other hand, does have a website. She also has a Wikipedia page that, among other things, mentions that "At Harvard Law School, she was a classmate and friend of President Barack Obama." Zalesne also managed to get herself quoted in the Politico article I mentioned above. Zalesne has worked in the U.S. Department of Justice, is a Deputy National Finance Chair of the DNC, and was a co-chair of Women for Biden and then Women for Harris. She has served as President of College Summit (now called Peer Forward), a non-profit that connects low-income youth to colleges and careers. So she is a credible candidate. The problem for her is that she probably has great contacts and a lot of credibility at the national level, but less within the District. Again, I never heard of her until she announced her campaign. I am not aware of any involvement that she has had in District politics. Moreover, some of her fairly extensive experience triggers some concern for me, especially her involvement with Mark Penn. Penn is mostly known these days for telling Democrats what is wrong with them. While there is certainly time for Zalesne to convince me otherwise, I am not sure that she is the answer.

What I think is really needed is a candidate with strong local credentials and at least reasonable name recognition. One possibility who comes to mind is former At-Large D.C. Council Member Elissa Silverman. Another is former D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine. I'm sure there are others. What would quickly increase the size of the field would be for Norton to announce that she is not running again. If that happened, candidates would be coming out of the woodwork.

The problem, of course, is that the election for Norton's office is not until 2026. D.C. needs leadership today. By all appearances, we cannot count on Norton. This presents an opportunity for those who would like to replace her. Anyone who wants to become the District's representative in Congress now has the chance to show leadership. In fact, it is entirely possible that the protest movements that are evolving in reaction to Trump's intervention will spawn new leaders who will become the most formidable candidates.

Norton has a laudable history and has been a great fighter for the District. It has been her greatest dream to achieve statehood for D.C. and I understand her desire to stay to see that through. Unfortunately, it does not look like statehood is in the cards in the near term. Her most important contribution now would be to hand the reins over to someone else. Now is the time for Norton to announce her retirement.