USC canceled its planned Tuesday gubernatorial debate, a stunning about-face that came after days of fiery criticism about excluding every prominent candidate of color from participating.<\/p>\n
Although the university defended the methodology used to determine who was invited to participate in the forum, it called off the event less than 24 hours before it was to take place.<\/p>\n
In a statement late Monday night, the university said it recognized concerns about the selection criteria had \u201ccreated a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters.\u201d The university said it discussed potentially expanding the field with debate co-sponsor KABC-TV Los Angeles but was unable to reach an agreement. <\/p>\n
USC said that it was a \u201cdifficult decision\u201d to cancel the debate, and that the university \u201cwill look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.\u201d<\/p>\n
Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee \u2014 all Democrats \u2014 had been excluded from the original debate field.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, some candidates were scrambling to organize a new event and keep a spotlight on the race.<\/p>\n
Democrat Tom Steyer, a wealthy climate activist who has pumped more than $95 million of his own money into his campaign, told reporters Tuesday morning that his team had secured a venue in downtown Los Angeles and was reaching out to invite all the major candidates, including Republicans.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will definitely have an event,\u201d Steyer said, adding that \u201cthere are a lot of reporters in Los Angeles to talk about this race\u201d and \u201cwe\u2019re trying to put this together on the fly.\u201d<\/p>\n
USC had faced increasing criticism in recent days, including from the four prominent candidates of color who were excluded from the gathering as they called on their fellow Democrats to boycott the forum. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe fought. We won! We stood up against an unfair candidate debate set-up that prematurely chose winners and losers,\u201d Becerra posted Monday night on X. <\/p>\n
\u201cThank you to everyone who stood up, raised hell and demanded justice,\u201d he added. \u201cNever give up when you\u2019re fighting for fairness!\u201d<\/p>\n
Conservative commentator Steve Hilton, one of two main Republicans in the race who have been leading polls, blasted the university.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat a pathetic humiliation,\u201d he said in a statement. \u201cUSC receives over a billion dollars in federal funding, and I have written to Education Secretary Linda McMahon calling for an immediate suspension of all federal payments to USC pending a full investigation into this anti-free-speech shambles. Whoever is responsible at USC should be fired.\u201d<\/p>\n
USC\u2019s decision came hours after Democratic legislative leaders called on voters to boycott the debate if the university did not invite the excluded candidates.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates\u2019 attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates\u2019 own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters,\u201d said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Lim\u00f3n (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ+, Jewish and women\u2019s caucuses. <\/p>\n
Kim emailed people involved with debate planning at 10:30 p.m. Monday to advise them he had decided to cancel the event.<\/p>\n
\u201cI know this will make several of you extremely disappointed,\u201d he wrote. \u201cI hope you will understand the decision was made in good faith based on my long-term view as to what was best for the university.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rivas and other political leaders commended Kim for canceling the event. <\/p>\n
\u201cAt the core of our democracy is the principle that voters deserve maximum access to the candidates seeking their support,\u201d the speaker said in a statement. \u201cIt\u2019s the responsibility of institutions like USC to uphold that principle, and I\u2019m glad they recognized this before more harm was done.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tuesday\u2019s debate was set to take place less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters\u2019 mailboxes, in the midst of a gubernatorial contest with a sprawling field of candidates that is more unpredictable than any statewide race in recent memory.<\/p>\n
The cancellation came amid a growing possibility that Democrats could be shut out of the general election under the state\u2019s top-two primary system.<\/p>\n
A poll released Tuesday by the California Democratic Party \u2014 an effort by Chairman Rusty Hicks to pressure lower-polling candidates to drop out of the race \u2014 again showed two Republican candidates leading the field. <\/p>\n
Hilton led with 16% support, followed by Chad Bianco, the Republican sheriff of Riverside County, with 14%. Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and Steyer were tied with 10% support while all other Democrats polled in the low single digits. The largest bloc of voters, 24%, said they were undecided.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s yet another reminder of the undeniable fact that all candidates must honestly assess their viable path to win, and I continue to call for them to do so,\u201d Hicks said.<\/p>\n
Pressed on how he defines viability, the party chair said, \u201cIf you\u2019re polling at 1% to 2%, do you have a path to get to 20[%]? That\u2019s the question. Do you have a path to put you in a position to win the primary election?\u201d<\/p>\n
Turmoil over the debate centered on the criteria used to determine who was invited. The formula included a fundraising score for each candidate that was calculated by dividing the amount of money each candidate raised, according to public filings, by the number of days they have been in the race. <\/p>\n
Candidates and politicians blasted that methodology, arguing that it penalized candidates who got into the race early and who have raised recent funds through small-dollar donations, which are not required to be reported right away. During the 90 days preceding an election, state law requires donations over $1,000 to be disclosed within 24 hours.<\/p>\n