What the 2022 Midterms Portend for the Next Era of American Democracy

In October, the researchers in the Political Reform program came together to discuss the trends and outcomes we were watching for in the midterm elections, aside from the results themselves. Now that the cycle is complete, with the makeup of the House and Senate resolved after the Georgia Senate runoff, we revisit some of those questions and look at what the midterms portend for the next era of American democracy.

What were some of the biggest takeaways from the 2022 midterm elections?

Mark Schmitt (MSS): That sigh of relief among many of us committed to democracy, after the relatively modest shifts in the 2022 midterms, was not about partisanship or control of Congress. Rather, it was that some of the normal and most banal rules of politics—such as that unqualified or extremist candidates tend to lose elections—seemed to have reasserted themselves. For several years, it seemed a real possibility that partisanship was so raw and absolute that candidates who were manifestly unqualified for public office or trust, and with very little in the way of a substantive platform, such as Herschel Walker in Georgia or Blake Masters in Arizona, might sail through on a wave of nationalized partisan politics. In such an environment, in which nothing matters except the party label, elected officials would be unaccountable for their exercise of power, constituents on all sides could be ignored, and bargaining would be even more impossible.

We’re close to that environment, but fortunately not there yet. The election revealed some stability and resilience in our democracy—but the country that devolved into insurrectionary political violence two years ago is still the same country. The election avoided the most dangerous possible outcomes, such as the ascension of a cadre of governors, secretaries of state, and state attorneys general determined to meddle with election outcomes. But all the fissures in our politics remain risks. Fortunately, the election gives us some time to address some of the deeper questions about our democracy, such as winner-take-all elections.

Maresa Strano (MAS): Split-ticket voting was a crucial factor in statewide races this November, reminding us that candidate quality matters even in our hyper-partisan political climate. Across swing states, conventional Republican candidates ran ahead, sometimes way ahead, of Trump-backed, MAGA Republicans on the same ticket. For typically high-profile races like governor and US senator, this behavior may boil down to voters’ instinctive resistance to giving lots of power to extremists, especially candidates with extreme views on abortion in the wake of the Dobbs decision. In the comparatively low-profile secretary of state elections, the democracy factor is obvious. Secretaries of state are known primarily for their role overseeing elections and voting registration. Conscious split-ticket voting or abstaining in these contests by Republicans and right-leaning independents is thus a pretty clear signal that many voters do care about democracy.

But these results didn’t come easy, or cheap. Contrary to the countless headlines, what happened was not exactly a resounding victory over election denialism. Until 2020, few people followed secretary of state campaigns or even knew what the position entailed. They didn’t really need to, not because the role wasn't important, but because secretaries of state had a strong track record of competence, civic-mindedness, and staying above the partisan fray. This year, voters didn’t have the luxury of complacence, and neither did the Democratic machine and small-d democracy community nationally. Groups like the Democratic Association for Secretaries of State and iVote sunk millions into these traditionally low-profile races, setting new records for spending in these races but also contributing to new spending records for the cycle overall. They also drew celebrity surrogates like former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), and even actress Kerry Washington. By contrast, the Republican campaigns spent almost nothing on TV ads after the primaries, and had few notable supporters besides Trump. All that, and the Republican candidates in Nevada and Arizona still came dangerously close to winning. So, while we managed to avert crisis this time, we should be clear-eyed about what it took and how close we came.

Lee Drutman (LD): Picking up on Maresa's response, I want to believe the 2022 election was a referendum on “democracy” and democracy won. But I confess, the more I think about it, the less I’m sure about either premise: that 2022 really was a referendum on democracy or that democracy really won. Yes, election-denier candidates got smacked down in close battleground races. Phew. But many more won in not-so-close, not-so-battleground races. That’s over 170 outright election deniers for House, Senate, and key statewide races. Add in the “skeptics,” and we’re up to 220. Not good. Not good at all.

So what happened? Well, the big thing that happened was that pretty much every incumbent got re-elected. Now that Warnock has won, this marks the first time no sitting U.S. Senator lost (as far as I can tell). Only nine House incumbents lost on November 8. Only one incumbent governor lost (Sisolak in Nevada). So, for all the billions of dollars spent (likely more than $17 billion), hardly anything changed. Remarkable.

Oscar Pocasangre (OP): Most people were expecting a red wave on election night. Instead, election night found everyone trying to come up with a replacement phrase to describe what happened: a little tiny red trickle? A red puddle? A pink ripple? Whatever it was, it showed how little changed in the political map despite a series of unprecedented events—the January 6th attack on the Capitol and on the peaceful transfer of power, the Supreme Court decision stripping away abortion rights, inflation increasing at dizzying rates. Add to that the billions of dollars spent on campaigns and mobilizing. But as many have pointed out—and as Lee wrote in his newsletter – this is symptomatic of the country’s calcified politics and slim majorities will probably define elections to come. Voters have been sorted into rigid partisan camps, so elections come down to those few swing districts that have yet to be sorted and still have a mix of voters and of ideological views.

Lizbeth Lucero (LL): When we look closer at Latinos voters across the country, we see that the messaging around a massive Latino Republican shift served mostly as a hot topic instead of reality, with the exception of Florida.

According to CNN’s exit poll for the House of Representatives, 60 percent of Latinos supported Democrats compared to 39 percent who supported Republicans. Across age groups, nearly 70 percent of young Latino voters voted for Democrats. If we look at gender, 66 percent of Latina women compared to 53 percent of Latino men supported Democrats at the polling booth. This makes sense given the issues that were most important among Hispanic workers, including the top two: abortion and inflation.

Still, the GOP's focused its efforts on wooing Hispanic voters with a record number of endorsements for Republican Latinas. In Texas’ 15th Congressional District, it worked. Monica De La Cruz, will be the first ever GOP member to represent her district in Congress. In Oregon, Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be Oregon’s first Latina in Congress. In other places, Latinos voters strongly favored Democratic candidates. In Texas’ 34th District GOP Representative Mayra Flores, who won a special election earlier in the year—even gaining the support of Elon Musk on Twitter—and was welcomed with open arms by members of the GOP in D.C., was defeated by Rep. Vincente Gonzalez of the Democratic party. Similarly, in Texas’ 28th District, a moderate Democrat, U.S. Representative Henry Cuellar secured his tenth term against Republican challenger, Cassy Garcia. While Latinos hold significant power in battleground states like Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, there is still more work to be done.

What should we be looking out for in this post-election period and the new Congress?

MAS: With the prospect of two years of obstruction and frivolous investigations by the new Republican House majority looming overhead, Democrats are trying to maximize the lame-duck session. Among the parade of legislative priorities they're seeking to push through before January 3 are protections for same sex and interracial marriage, Electoral Count Act reform, aid for Ukraine, and a government spending bill to avert a shutdown. Federal funding for election security ahead of 2024 hangs in the balance, too. According to election officials, this election, while ostensibly quiet, was a proving ground for strategies bad actors will try to deploy in 2024 to cast doubt on the legitimacy of results, and election administrators need more funding to confront these threats effectively. As one expert stressed at an event this week, this may be a now or never situation: “the best chance we have for federal funding for elections in next two years and before the 2024 election is in the next two weeks.”

Lame duck sessions are a problematic fave. On one hand, they can be highly productive. After losing control of the House in the 2010 midterms, Democrats led the most productive session since World War II (including the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell), and the current session is about as ambitious. Lame-duck sessions are also known for acts of bipartisanship and independence, especially among retiring or recently defeated politicians. On the other hand, these sessions have anti-democratic undertones and raise some concerning questions—when are our politicians less accountable than right after an election, when many of them are leaving office for good, and voters are exhausted and checked out? In recent years parties have also used lame ducks to play constitutional hardball, which is one half of the recipe for How Democracies Die.

Lawmakers’ dependence on lame duck sessions to get things done is yet another troubling recent development in American politics, especially at the congressional level. It’s a byproduct of our newly evenly-divided electorate, where unified control for the parties is always within reach. While this remains true in our politics, we can expect more gridlock when there’s divided government, preceded by and arguably necessitating bursts of lame duck legislative activity that will go largely unnoticed and unaccounted for by voters. That is, until we adopt reforms to break up the two-party system.

OP: We’ll definitely see more gridlock in Congress now that the House is controlled by Republicans. Two important implications stand out for me. As Frances Lee shows in her book Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign, slim congressional majorities shift attention away from effective governing and create incentives for congresspeople to focus on communicating party differences and constantly undermining the other party even if it means sacrificing a preferred policy – winning political points by losing legislation. With the upcoming 2024 presidential elections, expect the campaigning and posturing to start very soon.

The second implication is one pointed out by Jacob Grumbach in his recent book, Laboratories Against Democracy: congressional gridlock moves policymaking to the states where parties often have comfortable majorities and where interest groups can actually influence the policymaking process. But this sets states into divergent trajectories depending on whether they have Democratic or Republican state assemblies, increasing economic and political inequalities between states and eroding democratic processes in Republican states. As the Federal government remains gridlocked for the next Congressional cycle, we should start keeping a watchful eye on state politics.

How might these elections impact foreign policymaking in the immediate future?

OP: I have more questions than answers when it comes to foreign policy. One immediate thing to watch out for is iif and how the US approach to Ukraine will change under a Republican House since Republicans have campaigned against spending more money on helping Ukraine. What will be the new strategy toward the conflict going forward?

Another interesting question is whether domestic politics will alter foreign policy toward Latin America. Now that Florida seems to be solidly Republican, it frees Democrats from tip-toeing around politics in Cuba and other countries with substantial representation in the state, like Venezuela. Will the U.S. open up more to Cuba? Will it engage more with Venezuela, especially given the shock to oil supplies caused by the conflict in Ukraine?

What’s something you think got overlooked—or was under-discussed—in the midterms?

LL: Since 2016, there has been a lot of national attention on white evangelicals—a core group in Trump’s electoral base. While nearly half of all Latinos identify as Catholic, evangelical Latinos have been a topic that has been swept under the rug and could have huge consequences in the future. Latino evangelicals tend to hold more conservative values and in a nation that’s becoming more and more polarized on issues of abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious liberties, this could mean more Latinos moving away from the Democratic Party and embracing more conservative beliefs.

While Republicans would have liked to see a ‘red wave’ of Latino support this midterm election, there is a revolutionary shift happening where more and more young Latino voters are engaging in our civic institutions and embracing their multiple identities. They are stepping to the forefront and casting their voters for the first time and running for office. Take Maxwell Frost for example. At 25 years old, he is set to become the first Gen Z member of Congress and the only Afro-Cuban member of Congress. Hopefully, we will not be the last.

OP: Perhaps because election day itself and the aftermath have been peaceful, discussions about political violence seem to have ebbed. But the threat of political violence is still present. Let’s not forget that in the lead up to the elections, the husband of the Speaker of the House was attacked and that courts had to intervene to prevent armed groups from intimidating voters dropping off their ballots in Arizona. Worryingly, many violent sentiments against political opponents that were once reserved for the fringes have been normalized and mainstreamed.

MAS: Election and voting reform and the state and local level. Electoral reform was on the ballot in several states and cities this year. Most prominently, voters in Nevada, Seattle, and Portland approved ranked-choice voting initiatives. Even though Nevadans will have to approve the measure a second time in 2024 before it’s official, this was a major win for the hybrid blanket primary and RCV model pioneered by Alaska.

And speaking of Alaska, we also got to see reform in action there this year as ranked-choice voting was implemented successfully to decide state and congressional races for the first time. In 2022 Alaska joined Maine as the second state to implement RCV, along with more than 50 jurisdictions, including New York City, San Francisco, and Minneapolis.

We know from our extensive research on the topic that ranked-choice voting, particularly when used in single-winner races, is not a silver bullet. Still, it’s a definite improvement over the status quo plurality method, and the growing momentum behind the reform is a welcome sign that change is possible even without buy-in from the major parties.

Other small but important local initiatives that didn’t get much notice this year dealt with the timing of local elections. Voters in San Francisco, Boulder, and King County (which contains Seattle), and probably other places that I’m not aware of, chose to move their local elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years to coincide with state and federal elections. These changes will almost certainly increase turnout in local races. For example, when Los Angeles ditched their “off-cycle” elections starting in 2020, turnout quadrupled. When Baltimore did this in 2016, voter turnout jumped from 13 percent to 60 percent. If more counties and municipalities follow suit, we could see a real power shift in local politics, toward younger residents in particular.

How do these elections fit into the bigger picture?

LD: More than two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track — including almost half of Democrats. And yet almost all incumbents won. What’s going on here? In a nutshell, we have elections decided by few “swing” states/districts, which are in turn decided by a few “swing” voters, who are contradictory, multidimensional, and the least engaged in politics. It’s a weird way to run a democracy, for sure (as Charlotte Hill and I argue in a recent New York Times guest essay).

So where does that leave us? Nowhere actionable without big structural change.

Reality 1: Voters are vexed with the political status quo, but so attached to their party, and/or so disdainful of the opposing party, or stuck because they have just two choices. There’s no way to productively express their frustration in the voting booth, even if there are plenty of ways to vent outside of it. Reality 2: There may be a small penalty for election denialism. But it’s very hard to distinguish from incumbency advantage and ordinary partisan voting. Red states are getting redder. Blue states are getting bluer. And so 2024 will probably come down to even fewer states and fewer districts.

When it’s all this close, we should all be prepared for the small random shocks that tip us over the hillock, namely, how the Supreme Court decides the independent state legislature doctrine case, Moore v. Harper, which could give state legislatures get total power over election rules. (To read more, subscribe to my newsletter, Undercurrent Events.)

MAS: Wins for Democrats running statewide in purple states also signal a deepening concern among center-right and Republican-leaning independents that the system had been thrown off balance and may not rebalance on its own. While historically both major parties have exploited opportunities to enhance their electoral fortunes and authority, since 2010 the Republican party has taken more aggressive steps to lock in minority rule across state legislatures, the House, and the Supreme Court. Until Trump, this wasn’t cause for alarm for many middle-of-the-road Republicans or independents, who could rationalize these changes as being in line with the minority-rights-preserving structure of the Senate and Electoral College, or else as necessary to counter Democrats’ growing demographic edge and leftward lurch on social issues.

Yet so much has happened that cannot be easily reconciled: from January 6, to the flood of state legislative bills to restrict voting, to the nomination of election deniers to offices that manage elections and certify results, to recent decisions by the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority that defied both precedent and the preferences of the majority of Americans. These events illustrate what a minority political faction can achieve within our two-party system and our counter-majoritarian institutions. Whether voters are thinking exactly in these terms or not, there’s a growing awareness that our political system is vulnerable and what few mechanisms still exist for the public to influence policy, particularly our legislative bodies, must be modernized and strengthened.