Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s (D- S.F. Valley) bill to initiate a state-sponsored Gubernatorial Debate Commission chosen by the Secretary of State, and three state-sponsored Gubernatorial debates, AB 970, will be heard in the Assembly Elections Committee on April 17. Here is a recent email from Assemblyman Levine explaining his bill:
First of all, the brief background on the bill: I came up with the idea watching the farce that supposedly passed for a gubernatorial debate last fall between Angelides and Schwarzenegger. For those of you who don’t remember or didn’t see it, the debate was on a Saturday night at 6:00 at the same time as a World Series game, and a relatively important college football game (although I can’t remember which two teams, I think one of them was Cal). The questions and format really weren’t conducive to eliciting any useful information for the voters. I also got tired of, over the years, watching one candidate or the other trying to manipulate the format to their advantage. I figured I would try to do something about it, and if nothing else stimulate some debate on the subject of debates.
I knew that I couldn’t compel any candidate to participate in the debate, and I couldn’t force the media to cover it. But, I figured the press will cover the debates whenever they are held so they should be statutorily required to be held at a time that is more useful to the voters. I think the details of what is in the bill are self evident, but if anyone has any questions or suggestions please feel free to email.
I read everyone’s comments with great interest. I had a discussion with my staff as to what to do with the “minor party” candidates. We decided to be silent on the issue, but are contemplating giving some guidelines as to who should be invited. I am of two minds on this. The academic portion of me agrees with those of you who value the contributions of at least some “minor party candidates”. I think they certainly can do a good job of moving public discussion of issues forward and raising issues other candidates might not. I agree with both Thomas Jefferson who said America needs an informed citizenry to make democracy function, and de Tocqueville argued for a “market place of ideas” to help voters decide between various options. What a better way to fulfill both of those ideals than to have a debate with multiple points of views, even if some of the candidates really have no practical chance of winning?
However, as we saw in California with the recall election the needs to be some sort of limit. Even in regularly scheduled general elections there are often multiple “minor party” candidates on the ballot. Do we invite every qualified candidate when some of them run on single issue platforms such as legalizing marijuana? Without casting aspersions on the merits of the issues, isn’t there a better way of injecting those issues into the public discourse than using up precious limited time in a debate. I agree with Dan when he suggests that it might be more appropriate to be more inclusive in primary debates (should they even exist).
I do think it is beneficial for the electorate if viable or even semi-viable candidates are included, regardless of political party affiliation. Ultimately I would like to leave it up to the debate commission as to who to invite, but I would like to give them some guidelines so that we protect both sides and avoid the total inclusion or exclusion of certain classes of candidates. The question is, and I would appreciate the thoughts of list members on this, how do we set a threshold of viability for inclusion in a general election debate?
Lloyd Levine , Assemblymember, 40th District