Will Emily's List Endorse in a Senate Primary?

Emily's List Founder Ellen Malcolm

The announcement this morning that Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) will be entering the US Senate race from Illinois did something kind of monumental.  There are currently four open Senate races for the Democrats (the Republicans have just one open Senate race so far in ruby-red Kentucky), and with Kelly's announcement, three of those four races will feature credentialed (i.e. already hold high office) primaries pitting at least two female politicians against each other.  Minnesota (Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan vs. Rep. Angie Craig), Michigan (State Sen. Mallory McMorrow vs. Rep. Haley Stevens), and Illinois (Lt. Gov. Julianna Stratton vs. Rep. Robin Kelly...and possibly Rep. Lauren Underwood soon) will ensure that the freshman Democratic Senate class in 2026 will likely be a majority of women.  It also puts the organization Emily's List in a bit of a bind.

We talk about Emily's List a lot on this blog, but this is weirdly the first article where we've used the organization's name in the title (I can't believe it either), so I'll give you a little background if you're unfamiliar with it.  Founded by Ellen Malcolm, an heiress to the IBM fortune & a longtime Democratic political operative in 1985, Emily's List is one of the most important PAC's in US politics.  Malcolm started the company in reaction to the 1982 Senate elections, where she worked for Harriet Woods' campaign in Missouri (an extremely close race), and learned afterward that not only had not a single Democratic woman been elected to the Senate that year, but no Democratic woman had ever been elected to the US Senate of her own accord (ie either without being appointed or succeeding her husband into the office).  Malcolm attributed this to women not having access to funds, and made a point of endorsing pro-choice Democratic women for elections through her PAC, frequently endorsing early and getting involved with sometimes major dollar donations.  In 2024, for example, Emily's List spent millions in their quest to get Angela Alsobrooks elected to the US Senate over Rep. Dave Trone (which they were successful in doing).

Gender disparities still exist, even in Democratic politics where women have made great strides.  Currently only 34% of the Democratic Senators in Congress are women and 44% of the US House.  There is a very real possibility that in 2027, the House caucus could reach parity for the first time in American history (we'll likely talk a bit more about that when we get closer and I have a better read on the race, but recent endorsements of Democratic women in Arizona & Wisconsin show that Emily's List is coming to play there), and in gubernatorial elections Emily's List is already pushing hard for women in open seat elections in Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, & New Mexico.  But the Senate...Emily's List, despite a plethora of women running for the Senate, has yet to endorse a single woman in the 2026 cycle, despite their slogan "early money is like yeast...it grows" where they try to get into races early to help their endorsees gain footing.

This is because while Emily's List regularly gets involved in competitive primaries where there's one woman and one (or more than one) man in the race, they don't generally endorse in races that involve two women.  In 2020, for example, they didn't endorse with Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, & Kamala Harris all running, and instead waited for all but Warren to get out of the race (when it was too late to make much of a difference).  The same was true last year for the race for the California US Senate seat, where Emily's List stayed out of the race between Reps. Katie Porter & Barbara Lee for the Senate...and in the process watched as Adam Schiff beat them both.  Emily's List's inability to wade into contentious primaries featuring multiple qualified women is basically ceding most of the discussion in the races in Michigan, Minnesota, & Illinois to other special interests.  They will surely endorse for the general election, but the primary is where most of the action is here (especially in Illinois & Minnesota), and they are not having their voices heard.

Which begs the question-are they going to get involved at all in the Senate primaries in 2026, or focus entirely on the House & Governor's races?  Every Democratic incumbent woman up in 2026 is retiring (it's admittedly just two women...Senate Class 2 is a cycle that the Democrats have phoned in due to a tough map and a bunch of guys who have been resistant to retire).  While a senator might change his mind, it's unlikely that we'll have another retirement, and Emily's List rarely goes after incumbents, especially incumbent senators, even if they're men.  In North Carolina, Maine, & Texas, the three best shots that the Democrats have of a pickup opportunity, no top tier female candidate has stepped forward to run, and Maine is the only one where that's conceivable.

But I do think that Emily's List could help the cause here.  The era that Malcolm founded the organization in, when women had very little access to funding, has definitely dwindled, as is evidenced by the number of qualified women already running for the Senate in 2026.  But it's not gone, and more so...there are states where this is a bigger deal than others.  If the Democrats want to win the US Senate majority in 2026, even if they win ME/NC/TX, they'd still need at least one more seat...and that will require them to go into pink or even red territory and get an upset.  The fields in places like Alaska, Kansas, Iowa, & Ohio are still forming, but it's probable that you'll need a diamond-in-the-rough, a state legislator or a row office-holder that can prove, like previous Emily's List endorsees Kay Hagan and Heidi Heitkamp, that they can take a Likely R race and turn it into a flip.  I suspect that Emily's List will have room to play in at least one of these contests to help push a female candidate from obscurity into a major office nomination...and if they're successful, a Senate majority.