The University of Southern California canceled a planned California gubernatorial debate less than 24 hours before it was set to air, after a wave of complaints erupted over the fact that every invited candidate was white.
USC and KABC-TV had co-sponsored the debate, which was set to air Tuesday night.
USC’s Dornsife Center for the Political Future developed the selection criteria that determined which candidates received invitations.
The six candidates chosen for the debate were Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton and Democrats Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, Tom Steyer and Eric Swalwell.
All six of those candidates are white.
A formula created by USC political science professor Christian Grose determined the top six candidates using polling percentage and fundraising totals.
The polling component drew from the most recent Public Policy Institute of California survey, while the fundraising component divided the total amount raised by the number of days the candidate had been in the race.
Four established Democratic candidates of color — 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 — did not meet the criteria to participate, per reports.
Nine state lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón, urged USC to open the debate to all leading candidates.
Democratic leaders in the state Legislature sent a letter stating, “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.”
On March 20, the excluded candidates held a virtual news conference to voice their objections.
“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,” Becerra said during that press conference.
Villaraigosa also addressed the formula during the same event.
“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,” he said.
USC released a statement late Monday night saying the “concerns about the selection criteria” had “created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters.”
“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,” the university said.
USC’s vice president of content strategy Beth 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.”
A public letter signed by 50 political scientists and professors from across the country defended Grose and the methodology, writing: “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 drew sharply divided reactions from the candidates themselves.
Republican Steve Hilton posted on X: “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.” Republican Chad Bianco posted on X: “USC should be embarrassed.”
Villaraigosa posted on X, “USC made the right call, even if it came late and under pressure.” Becerra posted, “We fought. We won! We stood up against an unfair candidate debate set-up that prematurely chose winners and losers.”
