Becerra Accuses USC of ‘Election Rigging’ Over Debate Candidate Selection

A Debate Stage Divides California’s Gubernatorial Race

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra sharply criticized the University of Southern California (USC) and ABC7 Los Angeles on Friday for hosting a gubernatorial debate that excluded all candidates of color. Becerra alleges the decision to exclude him and other candidates was unfair and “smells of election rigging” as the June primary approaches. The controversy highlights growing tensions within the California Democratic party regarding representation and access to key platforms.

The debate, cosponsored by ABC7 Los Angeles and Univision, is scheduled for March 24th and will feature six candidates: Republicans Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, and Democrats Northern California Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, and San José Mayor Matt Mahan. Becerra, along with former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. Of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, were not invited to participate.

The Criteria Questioned

USC initially stated that a political expert, Dr. Christian Grose, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, independently established the methodology for determining debate eligibility. The university claimed the administration played no role in developing or reviewing the criteria. The criteria centered on opinion polling and campaign fundraising, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, discrepancies quickly emerged regarding the weight given to fundraising reports.

The initial methodology indicated consideration of semi-annual reports filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. However, a later statement revealed the inclusion of large donations reported immediately to the state. This distinction is critical because San José Mayor Matt Mahan, a late entrant into the race, hadn’t yet filed a semi-annual report but had secured significant immediate donations. Mahan himself agreed with Becerra, stating he “should be part of public forums about who will lead the state.”

USC officials have since said they are “reissuing the criteria to make clear that they include current fundraising totals, including semi-annual and late reports, which were always part of the formula.” Dr. Grose clarified that the initial wording regarding semi-annual reports was an inaccuracy, not a methodological flaw. Despite the clarification, the candidate list remains unchanged.

Echoes of Past Concerns

This incident arrives amid broader accusations within the California Democratic party. Earlier this month, Democratic candidates of color accused state party leaders of attempting to favor white candidates with stronger poll numbers. The debate exclusion has amplified these concerns, with Villaraigosa calling the selection process “biased and bigoted” and accusing USC of manipulating data to exclude qualified candidates of color.

Becerra’s letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim drew a parallel to historical segregation, referencing signs that once read “No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed.” He argued that USC’s actions, while less overt, effectively filtered the voters’ view of the gubernatorial field. “You can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me,” Becerra wrote.

The Role of Silicon Valley Funding

The controversy also shines a light on the influence of campaign funding. Becerra pointed to the significant financial support Mahan has received from Silicon Valley leaders, and the involvement of veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, with an independent expenditure committee supporting Mahan. Murphy maintains he recused himself from any debate-related decisions and has offered to take unpaid leave from USC if he becomes a paid advisor to the committee.

The Center for the Political Future, which organized the debate, has faced scrutiny for its role in the candidate selection process. The debate’s format and criteria have sparked a wider conversation about fairness, representation, and the influence of money in California politics. The debate is particularly significant given the open governor’s seat and the potential for a major shift in the state’s leadership.

What’s Next for the Candidates and the Debate

USC has stated it is clarifying the criteria used for candidate selection, but the lineup for the March 24th debate remains unchanged. The excluded candidates are likely to continue voicing their concerns and seeking alternative platforms to reach voters. The incident is expected to fuel further debate about the role of universities and media organizations in shaping the political landscape. The primary election on June 3rd will ultimately determine which candidates advance to the general election, and the fallout from this debate could significantly impact the race’s trajectory. Further scrutiny of campaign finance reports and polling data is anticipated as the election cycle progresses. The California Secretary of State’s office will continue to release updated fundraising disclosures, providing a clearer picture of each candidate’s financial standing. You can find more information about the candidates and the election process on the California Secretary of State’s website.

The situation also comes as California Democrats grapple with internal divisions over the ongoing conflict in Gaza, as reported by KQED, adding another layer of complexity to the gubernatorial race.

Looking ahead, the debate’s impact on voter perception and candidate momentum remains to be seen. The controversy has already raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the election process, and it is likely to continue to be a topic of discussion in the weeks leading up to the primary.