Why is Congress full of old people? | opinion

North Dakota voters recently approved a ballot initiative that would set an upper age limit for that state’s congressional candidates. If it survives likely court challenges, the law would bar anyone 81 or older from serving in Congress from North Dakota. The motivation for this measure: to correct this great generational imbalance in Congress.

With a number of high-profile US politicians approaching or past 80, including Republican presidential candidate and former Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, it’s no wonder measures like North Dakota’s the attention

But what exactly accounts for Congress’ advanced age? And what, if anything, could help even things out between the generations?

The aging of Congress has many causes, and some of them are inevitable.

First, if Congress seems to be getting older over time, it’s because Americans are too. According to historical data for members of Congress, the median age of members of the House has increased by 10% since 1960 – 58 years old, compared to 52. A similar increase occurred in the Senate, with an average age of 63 years old, compared to 57.

But the average life expectancy for Americans (79, up from 70) increases even more during that time, about 13%. And according to the US Census Bureau, the median age in the United States has increased even more during that time, more than 30%, from 30 to 39 years old.

Although North Dakota proposes some sort of age ceiling, the US Constitution already imposes an age limit. The members of the Chamber must be at least 25 years old at the time of taking office; senators must be 30 years old. So if the average age of Congress quoted above seems high, it is partly thanks to some artificial inflation of age floors.

Young candidates are hard to find

But natural trends and constitutional requirements don’t fully explain why younger generations are so underrepresented in Congress.

An additional big reason is that younger potential candidates for Congress face a steeper uphill climb and have to make bigger sacrifices than older candidates.

For example, even if they are interested in running for Congress, Americans in their 20s and 30s haven’t had as much opportunity to settle into secure careers as older generations. That means less access to the political networks and connections that political science research says are crucial to success in congressional campaigns.

More importantly, this means less access to money and potential donors. When I spoke last year with U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost, a Democrat from Florida, the first Generation Z member of Congress, he explained why their success was the exception, not the rule.

“It’s very difficult,” Frost told me. “The system is not set up for young people to run for office.” Just being a candidate, he said, means “a year without pay. If you’re already rich, that’s no big deal; you are fine, you have savings. This prevents young people from running.”

Young potential candidates also face a shortage of time as well as money. Compared to later years, your 20s and 30s tend to contain more major life events and changes, such as career transitions, geographic mobility, and starting a family. As a result, politics occupies less space in young people’s lives, compared to older generations with more time, personal stability, and professional and financial security.

Meanwhile, older Americans interested in running for Congress enjoy some key electoral advantages.

Older age means longer careers, political or otherwise, which voters often interpret as proven experience, or longevity in jobs that can translate into effectiveness as a member of Congress. In other words, older generations have had more time to prove their quality in the eyes of voters. Younger candidates may seem inexperienced in comparison.

Political science has also established the difficulty of impeaching Congressional incumbents. Almost every member of Congress who runs for re-election ends up winning. The so-called “incumbency advantage” helps all members of Congress, not just the oldest members. But it limits the number of open seats that are most likely to bring younger generations to Congress.

Frost and others stress the importance of generational balance in Congress for both representation and legislation.

The good news is that any progress made in this area will pay dividends in the future. Political science findings indicate that seeing people who are “like us” in Congress or other offices helps us feel properly represented and see our political institutions as more legitimate. The success of younger candidates encourages other young people to take the leap themselves, starting a virtuous cycle of representation.

While some of the factors favoring older candidates are inevitable, there are things that could be done to encourage younger people to run for office. In our conversation, Frost suggested allowing candidates to draw more generous stipends from their own campaign funds to reduce the burden on younger and less financially viable candidates. And of course, age limits like North Dakota’s could help make room for younger generations to run.

— Charlie Hunt is an assistant professor of political science at Boise State University.