Don’t clear the field in governor’s race by clearing out diversity

California’s race for governor is shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in the country. With Gov. Gavin Newsom term-limited and leaving office, Democrats face a crowded primary in a state that has not elected a Republican statewide in two decades.

Some commentators have raised a legitimate concern: California’s top-two primary system means a fractured Democratic field could theoretically allow two Republicans to advance to the general election. In a moment when the stakes for working families, immigrant communities, and democracy itself feel existential, that risk deserves serious attention.

But acknowledging that risk is not the same as accepting the conclusions some pundits have drawn about who should step aside.

A recent column in the Los Angeles Times argued that the Democratic field should narrow, and then identified which candidates ought to remain and which should “consider bowing out.” The candidates deemed safe to continue were Eric Swalwell, Katie Porter, billionaire investor Tom Steyer, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.

The candidates suggested to step aside included former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and former State Controller Betty Yee.

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

In the most diverse state in America, that framing deserves scrutiny – and furthermore, it should be rejected.

California’s electorate is majority nonwhite. Nearly 40 percent of residents are Latino. 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 those communities.

So when the conversation about “viability” begins by suggesting that candidates of color should step aside, while billionaire-backed campaigns remain untouched, it raises a deeper question about how political legitimacy is being defined.

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

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

That is not a strategy for strengthening democracy. It is a recipe for narrowing it.

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

That kind of political capital matters.

This conversation is also unfolding at a time when Latino communities across the country are under extraordinary pressure. Immigration enforcement is escalating. Families are facing renewed fear and uncertainty. In moments like these, representation in leadership carries weight beyond symbolism.

Telling Latino candidates that now is the moment to step aside sends a message — intentional or not — about whose leadership is considered essential 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 strength. They force candidates to sharpen their ideas on the issues Californians care about most: housing affordability, healthcare access, cost of living, and economic opportunity. They test whether campaigns can build the broad coalitions necessary to govern the state. 

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

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

California’s diversity is not a problem to manage. It is the foundation of the state’s political strength. Any conversation about the future of this race should start there.