A highly anticipated California gubernatorial debate, co-sponsored by the University of Southern California (USC) and KABC-TV, was abruptly canceled less than 24 hours before its scheduled airing. The cancellation, announced late Monday night, stemmed from a wave of complaints regarding the racial composition of the invited candidates, all of whom were white. The debate was originally set to air on Tuesday evening.
The selection criteria for the debate participants were developed by USC's Dornsife Center for the Political Future. This criteria utilized a formula created by USC political science professor Christian Grose, which determined the top six candidates based on a combination of polling percentages and fundraising totals. The polling data was drawn from the most recent Public Policy Institute of California survey, while fundraising totals were calculated by dividing the total amount raised by the number of days the candidate had been active in the race.
The six candidates who met these criteria and received invitations were Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, and Democrats Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, Tom Steyer, and Eric Swalwell. All six individuals are white. This outcome immediately drew criticism from various quarters, particularly concerning the exclusion of several established Democratic candidates of color. Among those who did not meet the criteria were former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former state Controller Betty Yee, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.
Nine state lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón, formally urged USC to expand the debate to include all leading candidates. In a letter sent to the university, these Democratic leaders in the state Legislature stated, "The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale — has delivered a result that is biased."
The excluded candidates voiced their objections during a virtual news conference held on March 20. Xavier Becerra remarked on the perceived unfairness of the process, stating, "We ask each and every candidate who is in this race to recognize that if we can’t have a fair process for a debate, then we should all not participate." Antonio Villaraigosa also challenged the formula's efficacy, asserting, "This was supposed to be based on polling and money raised. Some of us have been able to raise more money and are higher in the polls than a candidate who was invited."
In its statement explaining the cancellation, USC acknowledged that "concerns about the selection criteria" had "created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters." The university's statement further elaborated, "Unfortunately, USC and KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrow’s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues."
Amidst the controversy, USC's vice president of content strategy, Beth Shuster, publicly defended the academic integrity behind the selection process. Shuster stated, “USC vigorously defends the independence, objectivity and integrity of USC professor Christian Grose, whose data-driven candidate viability formula is based on extensive research and enjoys broad academic support.” This defense was echoed by a public letter signed by 50 political scientists and professors from across the country. They collectively defended Professor Grose and his methodology, writing that "What Professor Grose has faced, however, is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias and data manipulation."
The cancellation elicited sharply divided reactions from the candidates themselves. Republican Steve Hilton posted on X, alleging, "Tonight’s governor debate was canceled by the Democrat leadership of the state legislature. It was their letter of intimidation to USC that caused them to cave." Fellow Republican Chad Bianco expressed his disapproval, stating on X, "USC should be embarrassed." Conversely, Antonio Villaraigosa posted on X that "USC made the right call, even if it came late and under pressure," while Xavier Becerra declared, "We fought. We won! We stood up against an unfair candidate debate set-up that prematurely chose winners and losers."
The incident has ignited a broader discussion on the role of diversity and representation in political debates, as well as the balance between objective selection criteria and the desire for inclusive public discourse. As the gubernatorial race continues, stakeholders on all sides will likely continue to grapple with these complex issues.
