Vikram’s Viewpoint: Thoughts on the race for CA governor

By Opinion Editor Vikram Mahajan

Earlier this month, CA’s gubernatorial election was completely shaken up by credible reports of sexual assault by Congressman Eric Swalwell, then considered a frontrunner. Within just days, Swalwell deservedly suffered a complete political implosion, stepping out of the race and then resigning his seat (meaning the 14th district, including much of Fremont, now also has a special election to fill the vacancy).

Why wasn’t Swalwell, hints of whose behavior had been seen for years prior, previously held accountable? Why did DC insiders likely aware of his behavior not speak out, and in some cases instead endorse him for governor? Even if all these questions may be answered, Swalwell is only the tip of the iceberg, and it’s vital to demand accountability from our elected officials, reforms to the Washington culture that encourages such behavior and discourages voices speaking out against it. Swalwell’s political collapse is to be celebrated, yet at the same time, it remains too little and too late. (For more on this topic, see our online Opinion coverage of the Swalwell debacle.) 

And even with all this purportedly unknown, why was Swalwell the leading candidate? His campaign revolved around Twitter “owns” of Donald Trump; it was through his social media commentary that Swalwell acquired name recognition more than anything else. And in a state as large as CA, and with a field of candidates as large as it is this year, name recognition sometimes becomes the be-all-end-all. Yet it’s a damning indictment of our electorate, and our political system. Deplorable as Trump is, it’s crucial for the governor of CA to offer much more than tirades against him, in the way of policy proposals and solutions to CA’s many problems. Swalwell did not — most glaringly failing to offer substantive solutions to the state’s housing crisis — and yet he was long considered a favorite to win the race.

Depending on how one considers it, that was either in spite of or because the field comprised dozens of candidates and several notable names. The race was only further complicated by CA’s near-unique electoral system. Typically, Democrats run in the Democratic primary, Republicans in the GOP primary, and the two nominees face off in the general election. Yet in CA, all candidates, regardless of party, are on the same primary ballot, and the top two candidates — again, regardless of party — advance to the general election. In deep-blue CA, this sometimes means two Democrats run against each other in November; this was the case in both the 2016 and the 2018 Senate elections. 

Yet this year, in spite of CA’s Democratic bent, the opposite situation appeared very possible prior to Swalwell’s departure from the race. With several prominent Democrats in the running, and just two Republicans (Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton), the latter two polled in first and second place, albeit with about 15% of the vote each. In a state where they typically accrue 60-65% of the vote, it was a distinct possibility that the Democrats would be entirely locked out of the general election due to a splintering of the vote. (And if a Democrat were to advance, it seemed likely that it would be Swalwell.)

CA Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks accordingly implored lower-polling candidates to drop out, citing his fears of this very scenario. Here lies a major flaw in CA’s system. Smaller candidates are either forced out of the race — an issue earlier brought to light when a USC debate refused to invite lower-polling candidates — or they risk “spoiling” the election and potentially forcing a majority-Democrat electorate to choose between two Republicans. That’s not democracy at all.

With Swalwell now out, it’s likelier that Democrats coalesce around a candidate. Other leading contenders include ex-Congresswoman Katie Porter, who rails against income inequality on her iconic whiteboard, and Tom Steyer, a billionaire businessman. Sound familiar? It’s understandable why, at first glance, Democrats may be disinclined to support the rich guy in the race, particularly at such a time as this, and instead favor the candidate who speaks out against billionaires. And yet it’s not so simple. Porter may be a firebrand, but much of her fire has been aimed toward her own staff, with reputable allegations of toxic work culture and abuse of staff. Nowhere near as bad as Swalwell, of course, but there are a few parallels. And Steyer may be a billionaire, but he’s used much of his wealth toward advocating for and researching environmentalist causes. More than that, of the leading candidates, it’s Steyer the billionaire who offers the most concrete, compelling plans to mitigate the state’s housing crisis.

This year, I’ll be able to vote in the special election for the 14th and the June 2 gubernatorial primary. While it’s perhaps not appropriate to issue explicit endorsements, what I hope this column leaves you with if nothing else is this: always dig deeper into the electoral facts. All is often not what it first appears, particularly in the quagmire of CA politics. It’s essential for all of us, even those not of voting age, to conduct thorough research and be aware of the facts. And to speak out against candidates and political cultures and electoral systems that threaten our own values.