Democrats’ identity crisis takes center stage in California insurance commissioner race

California got rid of the traditional party primary system years ago. Now, instead of November elections automatically pitting a Democrat against a Republican, they match up the two highest vote-getters, no matter what political party they belong to.

That may be common knowledge, but it bears repeating because a quick look at ballots now arriving in mailboxes could leave you thinking that it’s still the old days. 

In seven of the eight statewide races there is one Democrat and one Republican. Governor, attorney general, treasurer, controller and on and on: one candidate from column A and one from column B. Even in the one supposedly nonpartisan race — superintendent of public instruction — it’s a Democrat versus a Republican. 

So what was all the panic this year over the top-two primary really about? Everything somehow seems just as it was before.

But then there’s the race for state insurance commissioner. 

Ben Allen, the Democrat, is running against Jane Kim. The Democrat.

This is what the architects of the so-called jungle primary system had in mind all along. No knock on Republicans, who by registration make up about a quarter of California’s voters, but in this bluest of states the real contest is between left-leaning Democrats and — well, what do we call them? Lefter-leaning Democrats?

Allen is what formerly would have been labelled a progressive Democrat, with strong environmentalist and campaign finance reform credentials. A member of the state Senate since 2014, he is known for authoring the bill that requires deep reductions in single-use plastics by 2030. Matcha-latte enthusiasts, take note. His district includes Pacific Palisades, much of which was destroyed by the January 2025 fire.

As insurance commissioner, he claims he’ll use his regulatory power to “lower costs, bring insurers back to the market, and make sure Californians are paid what they are owed in a time of crisis.”

In other words, he will work miracles.

Kim is a product of San Francisco politics. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, she led efforts to eliminate tuition for community colleges, raise the minimum wage and require affordable units in new developments.

She was the first California state director of the Working Families Party, a political organization that generally supports Democrats on the left side of the spectrum. Particular policy planks may differ, but in elections, the WFP plays a generally similar role as the Democratic Socialists of America.

Kim says that if she is elected, she would create a public single-payer disaster insurance system that would charge affordable premiums — including in high-risk areas — invest in prevention and resilience and still ensure there is plenty of money to pay all legitimate claims.

In other words, she will work miracles.

The California Democratic Party is endorsing Allen, making him the establishment candidate, at least in comparison. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who does not belong to the Democratic Party but caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, is endorsing Kim.

It should also be noted that Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, but not as a Democratic Socialist.

Ever since Sanders sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, Democratic candidates have gradually backed away from the term “progressive.” There was never any clear consensus on what it meant in the modern context, except that it signalled something to the left of merely liberal. But in Sanders’ wake, merely “progressive” started to sound downright centrist in comparison with “socialist.”

That works out nicely for out-of-state Republicans, who did not bother with a lot of self-reflection or analysis paralysis when they staged their version of populist revolution the same year. They elected Donald Trump president, MAGA became the new order of the day and traditional Republican values fled into political exile alongside traditional Republicans. Now Trump brands all Democrats as socialists — and indeed, more Democratic candidates are describing themselves that way — but also, by extension, communists, Marxists, enemies of the people, traitors and vermin.

California Democrats meanwhile seem engaged less in populist revolution than a comparatively slow-burning family feud. Voters in progressive (can we still use that word?) San Francisco and San Jose have in recent years elected corporate-backed Democratic mayors who call themselves moderate, pragmatic or “normie.” In Los Angeles, progressive (perhaps now meaning “normie”?) incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is being challenged for reelection by a former supporter, Democratic Socialist-backed City Councilmember Nithya Raman. But those campaigns are city-specific.

Perhaps it’s fitting that the insurance commissioner race is the one statewide campaign in which Democrats are working through their political identity issues. Much of the progressive-normie-socialist-establishment debate boils down to the degree to which a candidate rejects or embraces the support of large corporate interests — like the insurance industry.

Termed-out incumbent Ricardo Lara called himself a progressive when he first ran in 2018 and promised not to accept donations from insurers whom he would regulate. He disappointed backers when he took money from some of the companies anyway.  

Allen also promised not to take any such donations. A couple donations were made anyway, but unlike Lara, Allen returned the money, which he said had been accepted in error.

Still, Kim’s website states that she is the only candidate who hasn’t accepted industry donations.

This is the kind of conversation that takes center stage, in part because many Californians seem uncertain of exactly what the insurance commissioner does, other than try to keep insurers in California while also compelling them to pay more of what policyholders believe they are owed.

Confidence in the system, never particularly high, has nearly vanished in the wake of the Southern California fires and the difficulty survivors have in getting their insurers to pay.

Kim’s single-payer idea may remind voters of health insurance reform, but at least for now, it’s just an idea, without a firm plan for implementation or a consensus that it’s workable. Electing her would be a strong signal of voter support for the idea, but it won’t by itself bring the program to fruition. 

Allen’s more traditional regulatory approach could keep insurers, and their capital and risk-management focus, in play. But California can expect more fires, earthquakes, landslides and other costly natural disasters. Balancing the need to fairly compensate policyholders while keeping insurers solvent and in the California market will be no easy task.

So voters with no expertise in the insurance industry are left to make their choice based on which approach sounds more plausible, which candidate inspires more confidence, and which political quasi-philosophy — Normie? Working Families? Democratic establishment? Democratic socialist? — seems the right direction for now, and perhaps for the long haul as well.