A controversy has emerged over the criteria used to determine who qualifies for California’s gubernatorial debate stage. Critics argue the formula is inherently biased — particularly against candidates of color — and that these exclusions reflect deeper inequities in how campaigns are evaluated.
That concern deserves to be taken seriously. Representation matters. Access matters. And the history of exclusion in American politics is real. But here, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.
The debate criteria in question rely on familiar indicators: polling and fundraising. Specifically, the formula weighs polling as 65% of the viability measure and fundraising, as a measure of total funds raised over the time the candidate has been in the race, as 35% of the measure. These are not novel, nor are they designed to target any particular group. They are long-standing proxies for political viability — measures of whether a campaign has succeeded in building sufficient voter support and organizational capacity to compete. If these criteria disproportionately exclude certain candidates, that is a problem worth interrogating. But it is not evidence, on its own, of intentional bias. Rather, it reflects a more basic reality: some campaigns have not built the level of support these widely accepted measures are designed to capture. It is evidence of where campaigns stand at this moment in the race. Yet increasingly, even straightforward assessments like these are being recast as evidence of systemic bias.
In the years since 2016, however, it has become increasingly common in American politics to treat unfavorable outcomes as proof that the underlying process itself is illegitimate. That reflex — across the political spectrum — has come at a cost. Public confidence in elections, already strained, has been further eroded by claims of bias without sufficient evidence, blurring the line between real inequity and political disappointment.
None of this is to suggest that concerns about racial bias are unfounded. Racial inequities in political access and representation are real, measurable, and worthy of serious attention. But asserting bias in a transparent, consistent process based on widely accepted metrics — without clear evidence — does not advance that cause. It risks diluting the urgency of genuine cases of discrimination, making them easier to dismiss and harder to address.
With less than two months before the primary, voters are no longer being introduced to the field. At this stage, debates serve a different purpose than they do early in a campaign. They are no longer platforms for exposure, but opportunities to compare candidates with a credible path forward.
That distinction is especially important in California’s top-two primary system.
In a traditional primary, voters choose a party nominee. In California, voters are selecting the two candidates who will advance to the general election, regardless of party. Candidates have had months, if not years, to make their case. Indeed, Mayor Villaraigosa was one of the first to announce his candidacy on July 23rd, 2024. The so-called “invisible primary” has already taken place: through fundraising, endorsements, media coverage, and polling. Many have earned endorsements and articulated compelling visions, but have not been able to translate that into measurable support. Candidates like Katie Porter, who announced her run for the race in March of 2025, saw her momentum grow and shrink as news coverage shifted based on the treatment of staff.
The question, then, is what debates are supposed to do at this stage. If debates include candidates who have not demonstrated viability, they risk doing more harm than good. Not because those candidates lack ideas or merit—but because their inclusion can fragment voter attention and, more importantly, fragment the vote itself.
In the current environment, that raises a very real concern: that vote splitting could elevate two candidates who do not reflect the majority preferences of voters, while more broadly supported alternatives fall short.
This places debate organizers in a difficult position, forced to balance the democratic value of inclusion against the practical need for clarity and coherence in the race — a tension that has led institutions to rely on standardized, research-based metrics to guide those decisions. Debates that amplify non-viable candidacies at this stage risk contributing to that dynamic. Rather than clarifying the choices before voters, they can blur them — making it harder to distinguish between candidates who can realistically advance and those who cannot.
This is not an argument against inclusion as a democratic value. It is an argument about the function of debates within a specific institutional context. Each of the excluded candidates has earned endorsements, raised money, but failed to build meaningful momentum. Framing the issue as one of bias risks obscuring what actually determines success in this system. Arguing that these candidates were excluded due to racial bias ignores their performance and promotes a narrative that minority candidates require preferential treatment over objective, performance-based measures — one that ultimately undermines their credibility.
And in California’s top-two system, structure matters — especially when voters are deciding who will make the final cut.
Neil Chaturvedi is a Professor of Political Science and Public Administration and the Director of the Weglyn Endowed Chair for Multicultural Studies. His research and teaching interests include California Government, American institutions, elections and voting behavior, and race and ethnicity. He is author of “Life in the Middle: Marginalized Moderate Senators in the Era of Polarization.”
Jarred Cuellar is an assistant professor of political science at Cal Poly Pomona, specializing in Latino political behavior and public opinion, with a focus on the factors that shape political participation and electoral outcomes. He has published on Latino voting behavior, contributed to major election polling efforts, and served as principal investigator on the California Elections and Policy Poll.