Don’t eliminate diversity in the governor’s race

By Kathryn Pichardo, especially for CalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Guest Comment written by

of California race for governor emerged as one of the most successful elections in the country. With Gov. Gavin Newsom term-limited and leaving office, Democrats face a crowded primary in a state that hasn’t elected a statewide Republican in two decades.

Some commentators have expressed legitimate concern: California’s top two primary systems mean that a fractured Democratic field could theoretically allowed two Republicans to advance until the general election. At a time when the stakes for working families, immigrant communities, and democracy itself seem existential, this risk deserves serious consideration.

But acknowledging that risk is not the same as accepting the conclusions some experts have drawn about who should retire.

A recent column in Los Angeles Times argue that the democratic field should be narrowed and then identify which candidates should remain and which should “consider bowing down.” Candidates deemed safe to proceed were Eric SwalwellKatie Porter, billionaire investor Tom Steyer and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.

Candidates who were asked to withdraw included former US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state inspector Betty Yee.

Bottom line: The candidates encouraged to remain are overwhelmingly white and backed by significant financial networks, while the candidates urged to withdraw are leaders of color with decades of public service.

In America’s most diverse state, this framing deserves careful consideration — and, moreover, should be rejected.

California’s electorate is not white. Nearly 40 percent of residents are Hispanic. Asian American and black communities form critical pillars of the state’s civic and economic life. The Democratic coalition that dominates California politics is built on the participation and leadership of these communities.

So when the conversation about “viability” begins with a suggestion that candidates of color withdraw while billionaire-backed campaigns remain untouched, it raises a deeper question about how political legitimacy is defined.

If consolidation becomes necessary, it must follow clear and consistent criteria: demonstrated voter support, the ability to build a statewide coalition, and a campaign capable of mobilizing voter turnout among California’s diverse electorate.

What it cannot mean is that candidates with access to vast personal wealth or elite donor networks are automatically deemed viable, while others are casually dismissed.

This is not a strategy to strengthen democracy. This is a recipe for its narrowing.

Leaders like Xavier Becerra and Antonio Villaraigosa did not emerge overnight. They’ve built their careers organizing communities, expanding access to health care, and fighting for working families in neighborhoods that too often feel ignored by the political elite. Their support doesn’t come from a handful of wealthy benefactors—it comes from decades of trust built with voters.

This kind of political capital matters.

This conversation also unfolds at a time when Latino communities across the country are under extreme pressure. Immigration enforcement is escalating. Families face new fear and uncertainty. At times like these, representation in leadership carries weight beyond symbolism.

Telling Latino candidates that now is the time to step down sends a message — whether intentional or not — about whose leadership is considered important and whose is optional. That message risks undermining the very coalition Democrats rely on to win elections in California and across the country.

Competitive primaries are not a weakness. They are a force. They force candidates to sharpen their ideas on the issues that matter most to Californians: housing affordability, access to health care, cost of living and economic opportunity. They test whether campaigns can build the broad coalitions needed to govern the state.

And California voters are more than capable of making those decisions.

If the Democratic field narrows, it should be because voters demand it — not because pundits decide in advance which leaders deserve to run.

California’s diversity is not a management problem. It is the basis of the political power of the state. Any conversation about the future of this race has to start there.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.