California leaders call voters to boycott debate if other candidates not included
Democratic legislative leaders on Monday called on voters to boycott USC’s upcoming gubernatorial debate if the university does not invite excluded candidates to participate.
The callous letter adds another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum, which, due to the university’s selection criteria, does not include any leading applicants of color.
“We write to demand that you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all major candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and leaders of the Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander legislative caucuses, Native Americans, LGBTQ, Jews and women. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal requests from attorneys for the excluded candidates, public appeals from elected leaders across the state, concerns related to the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing concern from California voters. Instead of addressing these legitimate concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down on its efforts.”
USC officials did not respond to a request for comment Monday evening. Tuesday’s debate is set to take place less than two months before ballots start arriving in voters’ mailboxes, in the middle of a gubernatorial race with a sprawling field of candidates that is more unpredictable than any statewide race in recent memory.
However, political scientists, public policy professors and associated researchers at USC, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard and several other universities across the country released a letter Monday defending Christian Grose, the USC political science professor who developed the methodology for determining which candidates were invited to participate in the debate.
They called on the university to publicly defend Grose, arguing that while scientific debate is important, criticism of the debate criteria he has shaped has become ugly and is part of a broader effort to chill academic discourse.
“What Professor Grose was confronted with… is not a substantive or methodological debate. The attacks and insinuations from members of the political class include completely unfounded allegations of electoral fraud, inconsistency, bias and data manipulation,” the letter said. “These are harmful smears… They are consistent with other attempts to bully or slander academics that have become all too common in America.”
Controversy over the methodology the university used to select candidates centers on the inclusion of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is performing poorly in polls — while former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Supt. of Public Education Tony Thurmond and former State Comptroller Betty Yee were excluded.
“The university’s selection process, based on a formula never before used for a debate of this magnitude, resulted in a biased outcome,” their letter states. “When a methodology produces this result – one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to the USC donor community and co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future – the burden is on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”
Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, co-sponsored by KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision, voluntarily advised an independent expenditure committee supporting Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and had requested an unpaid leave of absence from the university until the June 2 primary if he were to take a paid role.
USC also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as an administrator for years, is also a Mahan supporter.
“I have not had any conversations with the hosts or organizers of the debate,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to get involved, learn as much as possible about each candidate, and then form an opinion that can move California forward in the most positive way. Watching the debates is part of that process. That’s why I believe the debates should include all credible candidates.”
The debate sponsors released a joint statement Friday defending their decision.
“We want to be clear that we categorically and unequivocally deny any allegation that the debate criteria was biased for or against any candidate and wish to clarify the facts,” said the statement from the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established parameters, consistent with widely used formulas for defining debate participation nationally – a combination of polling and fundraising – and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”
Hours later, the four prominent Democrats excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in the exclusion of all prominent candidates of color from the forum.
The Democrats participating in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — all condemned USC’s selection criteria but did not withdraw from the debate.
“It’s unfortunate that USC has decided to elevate one candidate over the others,” Swalwell wrote on
Porter expressed similar thoughts.
“The criteria used to determine which candidates are eligible to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair and objective,” she wrote on X. “I am disappointed in how USC handled Tuesday’s debate process. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”
