By David M. Greenwald
Progressives were not thrilled with the selection of Secretary of State Alex Padilla as the Senate replacement for Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. As I wrote initially, I would have preferred either Barbara Lee or Karen Bass on policy issues, and am not thrilled with Padilla’s record on criminal justice reform.
But really, if you analyze the potential candidates for Governor Newsom to choose from, Alex Padilla was probably among the very top picks no matter what you are looking for. In fact, while I fully acknowledge the governor was under pressure to select a Latino to the position, the reality is that even if he weren’t Latino, Padilla seems like the top choice.
Once I did a deeper dive into possible picks, it became pretty clear that the California Democratic Party is increasingly not a party of white men. The bench is fairly deep for potential picks, but most of those picks are people of color. I will go further here and argue that it may be quite some time before there is another white man elected to governor, unless a Republican wins one of 
these times.
Let’s start by looking at the list of constitutional officers.
Eleni Kounalakis
Alex Padilla
Xavier Becerra
Betty Yee
Fiona Ma
Ricardo Lara
Tony Thumond
The first thing that jumps out—it’s a very diverse group of people. You end up with three Latinos, two Asians, one Black, and Kounalakis who is Greek. On that list, with Becerra being appointed by President-Elect Biden to Health and Human Services, Padilla is the clear top choice, by far.
While Padilla is Latino (which was an advantage in this pick), he is also 47, relatively young and potentially able to serve several terms assuming he can be elected by the voters in 2022. That gives him a big leg up on the competition. He also has a long track record, has served on the LA City Council, the State Senate, and as the Secretary of State.
He has the advantage of having both legislative experience and having faced the voters statewide (and won).
The other potential choices are either not as prominent or older, and many have not faced the voters statewide.
Some other potential picks for the Senate seat might have been Adam Schiff, the Congressman, LA Mayor Garcetti, SF Mayor Breed, and Sacramento Mayor Steinberg.
Age was an advantage over people like Bass (67), Lee (74) and Steinberg (61)—and none of them have faced voters larger than a Senate or Congressional District.
The mayors all have distinct disadvantages. Garcetti was a potential cabinet appointment for Biden, who backed off him perhaps over progressive opposition. Steinberg is probably on the wrong end of his political career to garner serious consideration. Of the mayors, London Breed looks like a rising star—relatively young, woman of color, but she is in her first term as Mayor of San Francisco. She will be someone to watch, but not this time.
Adam Schiff is an effective legislator, but relatively polarizing.
You could definitely make a case for a few of the folks I have named, maybe there is a dark horse or two you could throw in, but no one really stands out as being head over heels over Padilla, based on experience and stature.
So, yes, the governor wanted to select a Latino, but even if he didn’t want to do that, Padilla was an obvious choice.
The governor then replaced Padilla with Shirley Weber as Secretary of State. That’s the one that was a surprise. Not that Weber is not deserving. She has a strong record on criminal justice reform, has been a strong leader in the Assembly. But it was not the expected move.
The attorney general pick—which I’m sure the governor will wait on until and unless Becerra is confirmed, and there is no guarantee given his role as attorney general that he will be confirmed, especially if Republicans keep the Senate—will be most interesting.
Looking at a realistic potential list of attorney general candidates, the governor will be under pressure to pick a reformer and most of the list named by publications like the LA Times, shows a long list of people of color and few potential white attorney generals.
When you consider those lists, along with the list of leaders in the state legislature, you recognize pretty quickly that the state Democratic Party is increasingly not a party of white men.
California has never had anyone other than a white male be governor. Even with a shift since 1998 following the 1994 passage of Prop. 187, the last four governors have been white men: Gray Davis (D), Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Jerry Brown (D) and Gavin Newsom (D)—but that’s likely to change with the next governor.
Especially on the Democratic side, the side that has dominated politics at the state level for the last 20-plus years—the strange interlude of Schwarzenegger not withstanding—it is hard to see that the next nominee will be a white male or, if it is, who that would be.
So yeah, Governor Newsom was under pressure to name a Latino to replace Kamala Harris—he was just fortunate that the logical pick regardless was probably the person he picked.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Guess some folk haven’t figured out that there will be a Black/asian woman in the Senate come January 20th… actually, the President of the Senate…
True, only gets to vote when there is a tie, but pending the results of the Georgia Senate run-off contests, that might be “in play”…
The fact that Padilla has won a statewide election needn’t have been such a major factor. California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office since Schwarzenegger and Poizner, in 2006. Seymour was the last GOP Senator, elected in 1992. That could have broadened the potential field considerably, including, e.g., former Senate Pro Tem, Kevin de León, and current Senator Maria Durazo.
That said, I think Padilla was a sensible choice. He won’t disappoint California liberals/progressives and won’t scare off moderates.
Seymour wasn’t elected, he was appointed by Wilson in 1990 to fill his own seat and then lost to Feinstein in 1992.
De Leon and Durango were two other possibilities (I was mainly looking for non-Hispanics to illustrate the point), so I don’t think either were clearly better candidates than than Padilla.
Bottom line, even with all of Padilla’s qualifications he doesn’t get the position unless he’s Latino.
Or the bottom line is that even if the Governor is not looking for a Latino, Padilla is a logical choice.
There’s no arguing my point, you know and have admitted it’s true.
There is plenty of dispute about what the bottom line is.
This seems to be really bothering you for some reason, enough that you felt you had to write an entire article about it after the discussion a few days ago.
The most interesting thing I found was that the next Governor is unlikely to be white. I didn’t really recognize just how much the leadership of the state party had shifted in a relatively short period of time toward people of color.
If Eric Garcetti runs for governor, he has an immediate advantage over any other candidates being from Los Angeles. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Eleni Kounalakis (Lieut Gov) aspires to higher office and she would certainly be able to raise money.
I think he has way too much baggage to run for governor – both the left and the right hate him. Good article on his problems.
I think he would carry Southern California quite handily. You overestimate the impact of opposition coming from the far-left, and who Republicans in CA vote for is pretty much irrelevant at this point. Name recognition alone would be a huge advantage for him. Bear in mind that we’re talking about 4-5 years from now, since I think it’s a given that Newsom will run for re-election and likely win.
Lord I hope so (re: baggage). And true about the double whammy of hate.
I suspect you would have made a similar assertion regardless of who he selected, unless he chose a white male.
It would have been illogical not to take ethnicity into account in a state that is 40% Latino.
Sure the Governor can take that into account, but it shouldn’t be the main criteria.
How do you know it was the “main” criterion? Padilla is not a random Latino; he’s otherwise highly qualified. Would you not have made a similar comment if he’d chosen a woman, a Native American, an Asian, or other non-white male?
This is mentioned outside the Vanguard, as well.
It appears to be essentially a “prerequisite” – at least a “person of color” – however that’s defined. I assume that an Asian selection would have been less-preferable, in the eyes of some. Probably depending upon the sub-group of Asian, as well.
A quota – the same type of thing that voters recently rejected. (Seems to me that it’s a civil rights issue, and not something that should even be decided by voters.)
What was logical was to get Padilla out out the immediate “line of fire” re: his gross faux pas in regards to the ‘voter education’ contract he approved… also serves to distract attention of that from Newsom himself… a “two-fer”…
And Newsom can not only distance himself from the faux pas, but also, ‘sell his brand’ to Laninx voters… he’ll gain ‘traction’, whether or not Padilla has the ‘ghost of actions past’ haunt him in two years… very logical… [I doubt, 2 years hence, that Newsom will put up more than a ‘token’ support for Padilla, when both are up to a vote to continue in their roles].
Padilla has two years to get past his faux pas, and prove his mettle… in his new role… I wish him well in that… he can have a political ‘epiphany’… when 2022 rolls around, I’ll judge my vote on “recent behavior”… I wish him well in his new position, as long as it serves his constituants, the comon weal… not himself…
Newsom has already proved his mettle… do whatever is politically expedient to further his career goals… his goal appears to be a POTUS… and the current occupant of that office switched parties, wives, and, almost daily, positions on issues, “facts”, to the same end… both are opportunistic, and lean heavily to narcissism… it’s about THEM not ‘the people’.
Sometimes, folk can do the right thing for the wrong reasons… sometimes can do ‘wrong’ things fror the right reasons… same coin, two sides…
I’d prefer to see electeds do right things for right reasons… note I don’t use “right”, in the political sense…
Today . . .
. . . Not so much!
. . . and a partridge in a pear treeeee!
Is being Greek like sort of like an honorary ‘person of color’ ? [Honest question!] . . . kind of like how Asians seem to be sort of ‘honorary white people’ when it’s convenient for others to label them that way (whether they want to be or not).
I wondered about that classification, as well.
Cool.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
And as the old saying goes, if my aunt had balls . . . although that old saying doesn’t really work anymore, because my aunt actually could have . . . 😐
You need to do a deeper dive into additional metaphors that mean “studied it more”.
Cool.
I’m tempted to offer another one of those $50 bets that no one will take me up on. Still open on Trump not leaving the White House in January . . . going once . . . going twice . . .
You’ve never heard of a Republican person of color? They do exist you know.
Love to see a Republican person of color as California governor, just to watch the progressive freak-out. But do spare me Tamika Hamilton. Oi!
Speaking of ‘Oi!’, when will California finally have its first Jewish governor?
Its too bad Sammy Davis Jr. isn’t around anymore.
Oi-men to that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ajdwLBkIo
Sammy at his best.
My guess is that those who proudly self-identify as “progressive” are going to become increasingly disillusioned when they find out that many of the “people of color” (that some of them champion) are not necessarily progressive. (However that’s defined.)
Quoth the Quota nevermore.
L-ing OL
“A quota – the same type of thing that voters recently rejected.”
Exactly. Quotas are not allowed in California under the recently upheld at the ballot box Prop 209. So on what basis are you alleging a quota? Because somebody said there should be at least one latino U.S. Senator from California in the state’s history. It appears for some, one is the loathiest number.
“De-facto” quota.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see anyone “advocating” for a white man to be selected – even among those who believe that quotas violate civil rights.
Like who?
That question is irrelevant, regarding the broader point.
But, why then the “de-facto” requirement (in this case), if the universe of possible selectees was already limited to those with the preferred skin colors?
(Again, this “requirement” was mentioned outside of the Vanguard, as well.)
Actually, there appears to be a lot of articles regarding this, now that I look.
And interestingly enough, it appears that the selectee actually wasn’t the right skin color, for some. News to me.
Apparently, only one color was o.k. (of which Harris herself only partially shared).
For example, there’s this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/san-francisco-mayor-calls-kamala-harris-senate-replacement-unfortunate-in-light-of-blm/ar-BB1cdcK8?ocid=uxbndlbing
The more I learn about what goes on, the more amusing I find it to be. And ultimately, maybe not exactly what is claimed, at first glance.
“That question is irrelevant, regarding the broader point.”
So you’ve got no one? In a state of 40 million people you can’t come up with a single person you think would be better.
I’m not advocating that anyone be selected based upon skin color, nor have I followed this closely enough to recommend anyone. Could be that the selectee is fine in my personal view, for what that’s worth.
But apparently, he’s not “fine” with some others, based upon a less-than-optimal skin color. (Again, I did not know that, until finding articles such as the one I posted a moment ago.)
Well, so much for the “people of color” category being as “one”. I’d say that this is an entirely predictable result, when skin color is used as criteria.
“ But, why then the “de-facto” requirement (in this case), if the universe of possible selectees was already limited to those with the preferred skin colors?”
I think the problem is you are overstating what occurred. All we know is that he was under pressure to select a Latino to replace Harris. That’s not a requirement. It’s likely that was made without someone thoroughly examining the range of options. It probably made it a pretty easy call.
From the article I posted, above:
Pretty sure that I can find other articles, expressing disappointment regarding the skin color of the selectee. None of which would advocate for someone “white” as a replacement.
Are you sure that you want to dispute that?
You could cited the article we did earlier this week which quoted someone pushing for Lee and Bass. But this undermines the idea that there was a strict requirement, he was pulled in multiple directions, he went with probably the best selection.
He was indeed pulled in more than one skin color direction, none of which were “white”.
Had he selected someone white (especially a male), his political career would have been over.
But I’d say that the more interesting story is the fighting within the “people of color” category. An entirely predictable result of skin color politics, and one which will increasingly not involve “whites” in any manner.
As I point out in the piece, it was unlikely he would select someone white because there were not a lot of options and most of them had serious drawbacks.
Well, as someone else pointed out, there are 40 million people in the state. So, you’ll forgive me if we don’t discuss every one of them, or even those who might “qualify”.
But it’s an outright lie to suggest that a white male would have been politically-acceptable, even if there was one who was “qualified” and didn’t have “drawbacks”.
Again, not something I’m advocating, regardless.
I find it amusing that you’re ignoring the divisions within the “people of color” category.
I ignoring nothing, I simply did something you refuse to do – assess the field and evaluate the strength of the candidates. From there I reached a conclusion that was somewhat different from my opinion before doing this exercise.
You complain but can’t come up with a single name that you contend is a better selection. When confronted with that fact you complain about what other people wanted.
They’re the ones with the tiki torches and hoods.
Nothing prohibits the Governor from considering the priorities of interest groups, including those of racial/ethnic communities, in making appointments. “Skin color” isn’t really the issue. (I’m guessing Ward Connerly wasn’t on his short list.) Also, for what it’s worth, Prop. 16 applied to public employment, public education, and public contracting, none of which are applicable here.
Made me laugh. I’m not sure that anyone on here has much in common with some of those folks. I’m guessing that some of them don’t like other white people, either – depending upon their political views. However, I suspect that they would have appreciated Ward Connerly, as you mention in the following:
Skin color is the issue, for some (as demonstrated by the division stated by Mayor London Breed).
Proposition 16 would have created discrimination based upon skin color. The same thing that some on here (and elsewhere) advocate in regard to political appointments. Again, not necessarily even involving “white” people.
No. Racial discrimination was already prohibited under state and federal law. Prop. 16 dealt with a much more specific issue. It would have allowed affirmative action in designated circumstances, to the extent consistent with federal law.
I don’t know what that means.
Affirmative action is discrimination, based upon skin color (e.g., in situations where enrollments or positions are limited).
By the way, the proponents of that measure apparently used the “torch-carrying” group as part of their video advertising campaign. I previously posted an article regarding that, which noted that the use of that likely contributed to its defeat. (In other words, it “backfired” on them.)
I suspect that now that the BLM movement has died down somewhat, the chances of yet another affirmative action proposal arising are growing even more dim.
Especially since it’s no longer a “whites” vs. “everyone else” issue, as some try to frame it.
Hmmm… didn’t realize the office of Senator and CA Secretary of State, which now have appointed (not elected) appointees/nominees, were private sector funded positions… have heard some folk alledge they are, ‘tho…
That aside, the appointees have the task, and responsibility, to show that they are up to the challenge… I believe both deserve the opportunity to do so… or, fail at the polls in two years…
The elected incumbent, his motivations, his behavior, is the truly pertinent set of questions… the two of his nominees/appointees, in their new roles, have committed nothing wrongful… time will tell… and they should be given the chance to succeed…
But, not a lot of difference, in principle (or, lack thereof), from granting pardons to political allies, currying favor, or CYA, and what Newsome has been doing… politically, personally ‘motivated’… but even a stopped clock is right twice a day…
Ron: All selection criteria discriminate among applicants/candidates. Not all discrimination is unlawful, though. Federal courts, including the SCOTUS (at least until now), have held that affirmative action programs (e.g., to further the compelling state interest in diversity) can pass constitutional scrutiny.
Bill: Of course U.S. Senator is not private sector. But an interim appointment doesn’t involve state hiring, state contracting, or public education.
Eric: You would likely know more than I do, regarding what part of affirmative action (based upon skin color) has been deemed legal, up to this point.
Considering slavery, woman and black people not having the vote, back of the bus, double water fountains etc. were once ‘legal’, I don’t think whether something is legal is the correct measure.
Going forward, it appears that skin color politics will increasingly become an issue, even when there’s nary a white person to be found in that process. 😉
No one else is amused by that?
Honestly, until I read it in the Vanguard a couple of days ago, I didn’t know London Breed was black, nor did I know Kamala Harris was a ‘person of color’ despite hearing about her in SF for years, until her ‘color’ was brought up regarding the VP pick. Probably because I watch virtually zero TV news and get my news from ‘print’ (read online not video) and radio. Unintentionally gives me a colorless view, until someone, often the DV, brings it up.
Where is that written as a principle of constitutional (or any ) law? C’mon…
Or, are you saying that SCOTUS is political, rather than detached/reasoned, faithful to legal principle(s)… be careful of your answer… has implications as to Roe vs. Wade, desegregation, and a lot of other areas you may hold dear… and to be clear, you do not need to respond to that question… I challenged a premise you made…
There is a compelling ‘state interest’ in non-discrimination, based on race, gender other factors, to be sure…
You want me to cite federal case law for you? C’mon … Google it.
“Diversity” as a goal? I will… unlike some, I long ago gave up the need for ‘spoon-feeding’…
Perhaps in comments made by justices, but sincerely doubt, “diversity” was part of the main decision… suspect it was to say the legislative actions to promote ‘diversity’ were not necessarily “un-constitutional”, except to the point that they (laws) bcome discriminatory…
Yeah, am not uninformed, nor stupid… but as a white male, I’m bigoted, right?
Bakke supports that diversity was not an inherent ‘right’, nor mandate… and it explicitly rejected “quotas”… and certainly did not distinguish between races. [took me all of 5 seconds to find that, just searched ‘Bakke’]
With all due respect, Bill, you’re in a bit over your head. Quotas aren’t at issue here.
How about if we just call it a “political prerequisite”, with only two acceptable choices regarding skin color?
And actually, each of those two was only “acceptable” to one of the respective sides (neither of which was “white”), for those who advocate selections in that manner. Hence, the type of comment that Mayor London Breed made.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. And nary a white to be found within those parameters, except for the one forced to make that selection. And as David noted, maybe next time the decision-maker won’t be white, either. 😉
Age discrimination, one of the last socially-acceptable forms, regardless of its legality. 😉
Actually, gender might fall into that category as well, and the de-facto political quotas based upon skin color – discussed earlier/above.
And for those unaware of it, here’s an actual quota which will soon become law:
New California law mandates racial diversity on corporate boards (usatoday.com)
I can just imagine the uproar, if some companies attempt to meet this by appointing gay white men, for example. Whom I believe may be “wealthier” than some other groups, to begin with. (Again, comparing groups – not individuals in that case.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if that group was wealthier on average than the “torch-carrying” group that Eric referred to, earlier. Despite sharing the same skin color.
You mean like Tim Cook?
Just noticed that they left out “disabled” in that list. You’d think that this would be included.
And as usual, they refer to “identify as . . .”
Stuff like this is one of the reasons I probably wouldn’t make a good politician, as I can see problems from this type of legislation, despite political pressure to sign it. (Well that, and the baby-kissing part – though I guess that’s fallen by the wayside – for several reasons that I won’t go into.)
Butt, the “A-kissing part” is still ‘politically correct’, and common…
I still believe ‘it is what it is’ (or, will be), and Padilla and Weber should be given the benefit of the doubt, to succeed or fail on their merits, and performance in their roles… I hope both succeed… and well serve the people, not themselves…
If they (either or both) do not succeed, neither should Newsom… personal opinion…
You mean like Tammy Duckworth?
You must have made that up. Government mandating under-representation quotas on the boards of private companies? Can’t be.