Congressman Gerry Connolly’s passing at the age of 75 is heartbreaking—and deeply alarming. He is now the sixth House Democrat to have died in office in the last 12 months and the third House Democrat to die in the last three months — Sylvester Turner of Texas and Raúl Grijalva of Arizona died within days of each other in March. Eight Congress members have died since November 2022, and all were Democrats. Each loss is tragic in its own right, but together, they signal a problem the Democratic Party has long refused to confront: the absence of a deliberate and sustainable leadership pipeline.

Too often, we treat the passing or departure of a member of Congress as the first cue to think about succession, but leadership planning shouldn’t begin at the end; it should be embedded throughout.

This isn’t about ageism. This is about infrastructure. This is about creating conditions in which leadership doesn’t hinge on endurance or waiting someone out. When we act like political legacy is the same as political inevitability, we strip our party of vision, agility, and relevance. Leaders should not feel obligated to serve until their last breath, especially when there are rising stars—already in Congress or ready to run—who are eager and able to lead.

Far too often, the Democratic Party functions as though new leadership is a threat to be managed rather than a necessity to be nurtured. The message is clear: unless you’ve been in line long enough, your ideas, experience, or urgency don’t matter. That “wait your turn” mentality isn’t just outdated—it’s actively damaging.

Consider the journey of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who unseated Joe Crowley, a ten-term incumbent and once presumed successor to Speaker Pelosi. Crowley hadn’t faced a primary challenger in 14 years and largely coasted through his time in office until a 28-year-old Bronx organizer knocked on enough doors and spoke to enough ignored constituents to change the game. But AOC wasn’t just content with being a backbencher—she’s also tried to lead.

In late 2023, Ocasio-Cortez made a bold bid to become the top Democrat on the powerful House Oversight Committee, one of the most high-profile investigative bodies in Congress. Despite significant public influence and strong support among progressives, she lost the internal Democratic caucus vote to Rep. Gerry Connolly—the same Congressman who has now passed—by a margin of 131 to 84. Connolly, then 74, had the backing of establishment leaders, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The loss wasn’t just about seniority; it reflected the continued institutional resistance to younger, more progressive leadership.

Even after years of legislative experience, national recognition, and an unmatched ability to mobilize young voters, AOC was passed over. That decision illustrates a deeper problem: the Democratic Party often treats its rising talent not as future leaders to be cultivated, but as outsiders to be managed. In doing so, the party misses critical opportunities to evolve—and to prepare for inevitable transitions.

Now, with Connolly’s passing, the party faces another opportunity to embrace generational change. House Democrats are preparing for a caucus election on June 24 to fill the vacant ranking member position on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The race has attracted a diverse slate of candidates, including Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, and Robert Garcia of California.

Crockett, a rising star and the current Vice Ranking Member of the committee, has been actively campaigning for the role, reaching out to colleagues to make her case. Mfume, with more seniority on the panel, has also been engaging with fellow lawmakers, while Garcia, a member of House Democratic leadership, has been meeting with colleagues to garner support. The outcome of this election could signal the party’s willingness—or reluctance—to promote younger, progressive voices into leadership positions.

This upcoming election serves as a critical test for the Democratic Party. Will it continue to uphold a seniority system that often sidelines emerging leaders, or will it recognize the value of fresh perspectives and the need for a sustainable leadership pipeline? The decision will not only fill a committee position but also reflect the party’s broader commitment to cultivating and empowering the next generation of Democratic leaders.

The problem isn’t that the Democratic Party lacks young talent. It’s that we too often fail to support, respect, and elevate that talent in real, substantive, transformative ways. We treat legacy and longevity as more legitimate than energy and innovation. And in doing so, we risk alienating a generation of voters and potential leaders who are desperate for change.

To be fair, there are incredible organizations doing the work to prepare younger and more diverse candidates for public office. Run for Something has helped hundreds of progressive millennials and Gen Z candidates get their campaigns off the ground. Emerge America trains Democratic women to run and win. Higher Heights builds the political power of Black women, ensuring their leadership is seen and heard. These groups are critical, but they cannot do it alone. Building a robust, sustainable leadership pipeline cannot be outsourced to nonprofits. It must be a core value and investment of the Democratic Party at every level.

What we need is intentionality. That means mentorship that isn’t performative. It means grooming successors not as threats but as stewards of the movement. It means recognizing that it is a profound act of leadership to step aside before it is too late—to make room for what comes next.

We need leadership structures that invite new perspectives instead of suppressing them. We need committee chairs and caucus leaders who look not only at who’s been there the longest, but who has the capacity to build bridges, introduce bold policy, and connect with voters the party claims to care about. Leadership transitions should not be forced by mortality—they should be guided by strategy.

It is both unfair and unwise to expect our most senior members to carry the full weight of our political future. Aging in office should be a choice, not a mandate born of weak infrastructure. And when members choose to stay, they should do so with a commitment to mentorship, collaboration, and building a bench.

Congressman Connolly was a respected public servant. His legacy, like those before him, should prompt more than mourning. It should force an honest reckoning with how we build power—and who we’re preparing to hold it next. If we do not take that seriously, we will find ourselves caught in a cycle of grief and panic, again and again.

Being the party of the people means embracing the full timeline of leadership—past, present, and emerging. “Next” isn’t coming someday. It’s already here, showing up and demanding space.

Preston Mitchum is the founder of PDM Consulting, based in Washington, DC. His work focuses on racial justice, gender equity, LGBTQ+ liberation, and the pursuit of policies that move beyond symbolism to create lasting change.

SEE ALSO:

The Uncomfortable Realities Of Middle-Aged Black Manhood

Patti LuPone, White Liberal Benevolence And Its Subtle Violence