California Governor Debate Collapses After Candidates of Color Excluded

Efforts to salvage a public forum for California gubernatorial candidates following the cancellation of a debate hosted by the University of Southern California (USC) have failed, highlighting a deepening dispute over inclusivity and access in the race. The collapse of the alternative forum, initially proposed by billionaire Tom Steyer, underscores the challenges of quickly organizing such events and the firm stance taken by several candidates of color who were excluded from the original USC debate.

The initial controversy erupted when USC canceled its planned debate late Monday, responding to criticism that its selection criteria effectively excluded all candidates of color. The university’s decision came after mounting pressure from California leaders and advocacy groups. Steyer, a Democratic candidate, then proposed a replacement forum moderated by KNBC-TV, but the plan quickly unraveled as candidates previously sidelined had already committed to other engagements.

The Inclusivity Impasse

At the heart of the issue is the demand for equitable representation in the gubernatorial debates. Xavier Becerra, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, Tony Thurmond, California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles Mayor, and Betty Yee, former state Controller, were all notably absent from the USC invitation list. Kyle Layman, a strategist advising Becerra, characterized the situation as a series of abrupt shifts: “A lot of this came out of nowhere — there’s a debate and you’re not invited, followed by there’s no debate, and then maybe we should all hang out and have a conversation.”

The candidates who were excluded have reportedly agreed to a pact not to participate in any debate that does not include all of them. Yee articulated this position during a news conference on Tuesday, stating, “The idea that none of the candidates of color are going to be joining a debate is just inappropriate for a state like California. We similarly need to have a commitment from all of the debate sponsors that they will include all of us going forward.” This unified front presents a significant hurdle for future debate organizers.

Logistical Hurdles and Missed Opportunities

Even with Steyer’s quick attempt to organize an alternative, logistical constraints proved insurmountable. According to sources involved in the planning, securing the participation of all candidates on short notice was simply not feasible. “It just wasn’t possible because of the last-minute logistics. It was not feasible,” one individual involved in the planning process explained anonymously. “We couldn’t receive everybody here.” The situation was further complicated by the fact that the excluded candidates had already scheduled other commitments following the initial exclusion from the USC event.

Thurmond, for example, was engaged in events in Sacramento and Richmond, while Yee participated in scheduled meetings with the East Area Progressive Democrats and a women’s group in Los Angeles. Villaraigosa conducted interviews at his campaign office, Becerra was traveling, and Katie Porter, another Democratic candidate, hosted a livestream on Instagram. These pre-existing commitments underscored the difficulty of rapidly assembling a comprehensive forum.

The Broader Debate Landscape

The fallout from the USC debate cancellation extends beyond this single event. The next major televised debate is scheduled for April 1 at Fresno State University, with Becerra and Villaraigosa already confirmed as attendees, according to a news release from the Western Growers Assn., one of the event’s sponsors. However, Thurmond and Yee were not invited. A debate planned for April 22 in San Francisco, hosted by KRON-TV and broadcast on Nexstar Media Group stations, will also exclude all four candidates of color, along with San José Mayor Matt Mahan.

Mahan, who was also not invited to the USC debate, has called for candidates to take control of the debate process. “We don’t need gatekeepers,” Mahan stated. “I’m calling on my fellow candidates to work together to organize our own debates — so People can take our ideas for a better California to every corner of California. Let’s let the voters truly decide.” This proposal suggests a potential shift towards candidate-led debates, bypassing traditional media and institutional organizers.

USC’s Criteria and the Question of Bias

The original criteria used by USC to select debate participants have approach under intense scrutiny, with accusations of bias. The inclusion of Mahan, a white candidate polling lower than others, while excluding candidates of color, fueled the controversy. Steyer’s campaign reportedly attempted to create an alternative event that would include all candidates, but the effort ultimately failed due to logistical challenges and the prior commitments of the excluded candidates. A member of Steyer’s campaign explained, “We were trying to do the right thing upon learning that the debate was canceled at USC… Given the short amount of time we were trying to put this together, it ultimately could not happen because not all the candidates could get to the studio.”

The scrapped USC debate was intended to feature six candidates: Democrats Eric Swalwell, Katie Porter, Mahan, and Steyer, along with Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco. The cancellation and subsequent failed attempts to organize a replacement have left a void in the public discourse surrounding the California gubernatorial race.

What’s Next for the California Gubernatorial Debates?

The immediate future of gubernatorial debates in California remains uncertain. The existing schedule includes the Fresno State University debate on April 1 and the KRON-TV hosted event on April 22, both of which face questions regarding inclusivity. The candidates’ informal pact to only participate in debates that include all of them adds another layer of complexity.

Looking ahead, the viability of Mahan’s proposal for candidate-organized debates will likely be a key point of discussion. Such an approach could potentially circumvent the issues of biased selection criteria and logistical constraints, but it would also require significant coordination and resources from the candidates themselves. The situation highlights the ongoing need for transparent and equitable debate processes in California’s gubernatorial election, and the potential for candidates to proactively shape the terms of their own public engagement. The Western Growers Association’s role as a sponsor of the Fresno State debate will also be under scrutiny, given the current focus on inclusivity.

Further complicating matters, the California Secretary of State’s office has not yet issued any guidance on debate participation standards for the remainder of the election cycle. The California Secretary of State’s website provides information on election procedures, but does not address debate criteria specifically. This lack of official oversight leaves the responsibility for ensuring fair and inclusive debates largely in the hands of individual organizations and candidates.