California’s gubernatorial race just got uglier. Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra is firing off accusations that the University of Southern California and ABC7 Los Angeles engineered a debate to deliberately exclude all candidates of color—just three months before the June primary.
Becerra didn’t mince words. In a scathing letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim, he accused the university of a “selective filter” designed to manipulate voters’ perception of the race. He evoked his father’s stories of blatant discrimination, writing:
“My father used to tell me of the days when he would encounter signs posted outside establishments that read ‘No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed.’ USC’s actions may not seem so transparent. But, you have deliberately chosen to selectively filter the voters’ view of the field of gubernatorial candidates in what all observers characterize as a wide-open race.”
Becerra called the exclusion “smells of election rigging,” pointing to the fact that every candidate of color—himself, former state Controller Betty Yee, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa—was left off the March 24 debate lineup, while a newly minted white candidate, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, scored a seat.
USC defended the decision, claiming the process was determined by political scientist Dr. Christian Grose, who applied a formula weighing polling numbers and fundraising totals. A statement from USC’s Center for the Political Future emphasized:
“No one in the USC administration had any role in developing, reviewing or approving those criteria.”
But the methodology raised eyebrows. USC initially relied on semi-annual fundraising reports to gauge candidates’ eligibility, yet also considered large donations that campaigns must report immediately—a loophole that favored Mahan, who entered the race late and hadn’t filed any semi-annual reports.
The university scrambled to clarify the criteria. A statement said:
“We 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. We are not changing the criteria. We have updated even as of today and the rank order includes the same top 6 candidates.”
Grose tried to downplay the controversy, calling it “just a wording issue. It’s not a methodology issue,” insisting that polling and fundraising were the true metrics.
Meanwhile, Becerra wasn’t buying it. He pointed out that Mahan, despite never polling higher than some excluded candidates, received major financial backing from Silicon Valley elites. He also highlighted a potential conflict of interest: veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, is a volunteer for an independent group backing Mahan. Murphy insists he recused himself from the debate and would take unpaid leave if he formally becomes a paid advisor.
The full debate roster now includes Republicans Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff, and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, alongside Democrats Eric Swalwell, Katie Porter, Tom Steyer, and Mahan.
Villaraigosa, a former USC professor, didn’t hold back in criticizing the process:
“Californians deserve a fair process, and voters deserve to hear from all qualified voices. But this biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful.”
Becerra echoed that sentiment:
“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.”
The drama adds fuel to simmering tensions among Democratic candidates of color, who have long accused party insiders of tilting the field toward white contenders with established fundraising and poll numbers. Now, as the primary looms, the USC debate saga threatens to dominate headlines in a race that could shape California’s political landscape for years.
