Editor’s note: The following commentary is an excerpt from remarks presented before the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission on March 16, 2026. *** I am a full-time hospice physician in California, board-certified in family medicine with additional certification in hospice and palliative care. For me, medicine is more than a profession — it is a calling. Guided by my faith, I strive to treat every patient with compassion, dignity, and respect. As a hospice physician, I care for patients who are often frightened, vulnerable, and nearing the end of life. My role is to relieve suffering and help patients live their final days with dignity — not to hasten death. In 2022, California amended its assisted suicide law to require even non-participating physicians to acknowledge and document a patient’s request for assisted suicide — effectively initiating the process for obtaining lethal drugs. Even physicians who objected to assisted suicide had to record the request, provide information about it, and refer the patient to a physician who would provide it. This was no accident. Legislative analysis before the law was passed warned that forcing physicians to document or facilitate assisted suicide was problematic and likely violated their rights, yet the state pushed the law forward anyway. At the same time, the waiting period to obtain lethal drugs was drastically shortened — from 15 days to just 48 hours after the first documented request. Forty-eight hours leave very little time for reflection — and often not enough time to treat the symptoms that lead many patients to request assisted suicide in the first place. In more than 20 years as a hospice physician, I have seen how vulnerable patients are when facing terminal illness. They are often physically exhausted, emotionally overwhelmed, and fearful of becoming a burden to those they love. Many patients arrive in hospice with severe, poorly controlled pain — especially those with advanced cancer. Some have already obtained assisted-suicide drugs. Others are considering it because they fear their suffering will become unbearable. But with proper hospice care, we can often control those symptoms within days. When pain and distress are relieved, fear fades, hope returns, and the desire for assisted suicide often disappears. Legalizing assisted suicide has also created situations where vulnerable patients can be pressured toward it — even when it is not their true wish. In one case, a family member asked me to encourage their mother to consider assisted suicide. She was a deeply religious woman who believed suicide was wrong, but her family hoped she might reconsider if a doctor told her it was acceptable. In another case, I cared for a patient with questionable mental capacity whose family was strongly urging him to pursue assisted suicide, even though he was not in any pain or distress. Thankfully, I had the freedom to protect these patients from that pressure. Assisted suicide is never medically necessary to manage pain. The American Medical Association has stated that it is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” and poses serious societal risks. This concern is shared by many organizations across the political spectrum, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the National Council on Disability. I could not in good conscience follow this law, even if it meant risking my medical license. I also could not afford to challenge the state of California on my own, but Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in to defend me. Their attorneys ultimately secured a court order permanently preventing California from forcing physicians to facilitate assisted suicide under this law. But there will undoubtedly be future attempts to expand and normalize assisted suicide and force medical professionals to participate in it. We are in the midst of a profound spiritual and cultural struggle between a culture that protects life and one that accepts death as a solution. The government should never force doctors to practice medicine in ways that violate their conscience or their duty to protect life. And no patient should ever feel that their life is a problem to be solved rather than a person to be cared for. *** Dr. Leslee Cochrane is a full-time hospice physician in Murrieta, California. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

As early voting rolls along, Virginia Democrats are nervous about their ludicrous gerrymander of the Commonwealth. But they have help from the state election board thanks to a recommendation that prevents voters from even seeing the bizarrely drawn map before they cast their ballots. According to documents provided to the Daily Wire thanks to a freedom of information act request, a “Redistricting Webinar FAQ,” provided by the General Registrars and Elections Office staff recommends that the proposed map not even be publicly posted by Virginia’s 133 localities: Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections. Among the Congress-critters benefiting from the new map is longtime Democrat Rep. Don Beyer, who stands to see a dramatically redrawn district — more than half of voters in it are new to him — and admitted this week that the map looks “unfair.” “It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer told NBC News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.” “It’s unfair, sure, but Trump” has been the Democrats’ argument for the absurdly redrawn districts, designed to turn a 6-5 majority delegation into a 10-1 blue slate. The fact that voters will be unable to see how ridiculous it is that five Democratic reps could live in Northern Virginia while representing most of the state is one of the best things they have going for them. They’re counting on voters to stay ignorant of the truth.

In a landmark deal that marries German engineering prowess with Israeli combat-proven technology, Volkswagen is in advanced negotiations to transform its Osnabrück vehicle plant into a production hub for the Iron Dome missile defense system. The partnership with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems represents a strategic masterstroke, offering a lifeline to thousands of German workers while bolstering Western security at a time of unprecedented global volatility. The move comes as Israel and the United States continue their high-stakes campaign to neutralize the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and its regional proxies. While the conflict has sparked intense debate within the German halls of power—most notably from President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who recently characterized the war as a “disastrous mistake”—the VW-Rafael tie-up signals a more pragmatic, security-first approach from Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government. The Osnabrück plant, previously facing closure due to a sluggish transition to electric vehicles, is set to become a cornerstone of the European Sky Shield Initiative. By producing launchers, generators, and heavy-duty transport trucks for the Iron Dome, Volkswagen is pivoting from a struggling automotive market to a booming defense sector. For Israel, the deal is a testament to the enduring strength of the Berlin-Jerusalem alliance. Rafael officials noted that Germany was chosen specifically for its status as one of Israel’s most reliable partners. The collaboration aims to: Save 2,300 high-skilled jobs that were previously at risk of redundancy. Integrate “Battle-Proven” Technology into the European defense infrastructure. Strengthen Transatlantic Security by providing a localized supply chain for critical air defense components. The industrial synergy stands in stark contrast to the pointed rhetoric from President Steinmeier, who on Tuesday warned of a “profound rupture” in ties with Washington. However, Chancellor Merz has remained focused on the broader strategic necessity of the mission. While expressing concern over regional stability and potential migration waves, Merz has affirmed that Germany shares the core goals of the U.S. and Israel: ending Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its support for global terrorism. The transition at Osnabrück is expected to be seamless, requiring minimal new investment to convert existing assembly lines for defense hardware. Beyond the immediate economic boost, the partnership allows Germany to harness its excess industrial capacity to meet a €500 billion defense spending goal by 2030. By choosing to produce the Iron Dome—a system credited with a 90% success rate in saving civilian lives—Volkswagen is not just saving a factory; it is participating in a vital effort to safeguard the democratic world.

Washington state has never had an income tax. Every time voters were asked whether they wanted one, they said no. They have said no eleven times, in fact, with margins as steep as 77% against. In 2024, Washington’s citizens forced the Legislature to enact I-2111, a measure that explicitly banned a state income tax, after gathering over 446,000 signatures for the initiative. Democrats looked at all of that, shrugged, and passed one anyway. On March 10, the Washington House voted 51-46 to approve SB 6346, imposing a 9.9% tax on individual income above $1 million. Governor Bob Ferguson, who had publicly flirted with vetoing it before deciding not to, pledged to sign it. It was all a performance to pretend that he was getting taxpayer benefits out of targeting the millionaires to pay “their fair share.” Democrats dressed it up as a narrow “millionaire’s tax” and insisted you have nothing to worry about. That is exactly what they want you to believe. It is not true. Why this income tax is unconstitutional by design Here is the legal reality. Under the 1933 Washington Supreme Court ruling in Culliton v. Chase, income is classified as property under the state constitution. A graduated income tax violates the uniformity clause. That precedent has been confirmed and reconfirmed for nearly a century. Former Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, former Justice Phil Talmadge, and former Attorney General Rob McKenna have all stated unequivocally that income is intangible property under Washington’s constitution. The correct vehicle to change that has always been a constitutional amendment put to voters. Democrats tried that route, too, and got crushed at the ballot box repeatedly. So they stopped asking. Washington Democrats passed a law they know is unconstitutional because the real target was never the millionaires. The real target is the Washington State Supreme Court. When Democrats passed the capital gains tax a few years ago, the justices who upheld it practically begged someone to bring them a case that would let them torch Culliton entirely. SB 6346 is that case. Once a legal challenge is filed, and it will be filed immediately, Democrats expect their sympathetic Supreme Court to use the vehicle to wipe out 90 years of precedent and legalize a permanent, broadened income tax for everyone, without a single voter ever getting a say. The ‘millionaires only’ promise is a lie If you live outside Washington and think this has nothing to do with you, pay attention. This is the playbook. Washington already has a capital gains tax that Democrats sold as a modest levy on investment gains. They also have an estate tax (a death tax) that activates at one of the lowest thresholds in the country. Every new layer of taxation arrives with the same promise that it targets only the wealthy and that everyone else is safe. The income tax is the next layer. The threshold today is $1 million. The moment the Supreme Court blesses the structure, the number is up for negotiation, and lawmakers will negotiate it down. Democrats made their intentions concrete when they specifically amended SB 6346 to exempt it from I-2111, the voter-passed ban on a state income tax. Read that again. Voters banned an income tax. Democrats passed one and wrote language into the bill to neutralize voters’ own protections. That is not an oversight. That is a statement of hostility toward the voters’ will. And this law may not be subject to a referendum, since Democrats inserted a “necessity clause” that precludes the voter challenge. They pretended this was a necessary, emergency piece of legislation. That it doesn’t go into effect until 2028 undercuts that emergency message, but Democrats don’t seem to care how transparent their scam is. The wealth exodus is already underway The wealthy are not waiting for a court ruling. On the same night the income tax cleared the House, Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, who built his company from a single Pike Place coffee shop into one of the most recognized brands on earth, announced he and his wife are leaving Seattle for Miami after 44 years in Washington. He is taking his taxable income with him. Jeff Bezos made the same calculation after the capital gains tax passed. Zach Abraham, principal and CIO of Bulwark Capital Management, which oversees roughly $1.1 billion in assets, told me on The Jason Rantz Show on Seattle Red 770 AM that he is leaving Washington and relocating his business. He calculated that his effective rate would fall between 49% and 51% once all state taxes are factored in. At one recent board meeting in Woodinville, Washington, just outside of Seattle, he sat alongside a small group of investors who collectively manage around $4 billion. Every person in that room is getting out, he said. “I don’t feel that I have a choice,” Abraham told me. An Association of Washington Business survey found 17% of Washington businesses are now considering leaving the state entirely, up 9% from a year ago. The CEO of Moment, a Seattle-based mobile photography company, just announced he’s moving the business to Wyoming after Washington’s separate new digital advertising tax added $200,000 in overnight annual costs. Washington is following a blueprint that already failed Washington Democrats do not have to guess how this ends. California spent years dismissing warnings that its tax-and-regulate model was pushing out the businesses and high earners who funded the whole operation. Then Oracle left. Then Hewlett-Packard. Then Tesla. Then Charles Schwab. The departures were written off as isolated decisions until the state’s own budget office could no longer ignore the revenue gap left behind. New York has watched the same pattern play out, with financial firms and high-net-worth residents flooding into Florida and Texas at a pace that has forced even Democratic lawmakers to acknowledge the damage. The Tax Foundation has consistently documented that high-income earners are among the most mobile taxpayers in the country and the most responsive to rate changes. Washington is not pioneering a bold new model. It is copying a failure that two of the largest states in the country are still trying to reverse. The receipts already exist, and Democrats are simply choosing to ignore them. What happens when the court rules Washington Democrats have spent nine decades trying to create an income tax for everyone in the state. They are now five Supreme Court votes away from doing it without ever winning another election on the subject. They bypassed voters, neutralized a voter-approved ban, and handed a cooperative court the exact vehicle it has been waiting for. The millionaire’s tax is the opening bid. Everyone else is the closing argument. You have been warned. *** Jason Rantz is a Seattle-based talk show host and author of “What’s Killing America: Inside the Radical Left’s Tragic Destruction of Our Cities.” The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Pentagon has tapped the Army’s famed 82nd Airborne Division to deploy 3,000 troops to the Middle East as the United States and Israel continue Operation Epic Fury, the joint military campaign against the Iranian regime. Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported on Tuesday that the move is a “first step” that would open the door for the Trump administration to shift toward ground operations in Iran, should that prove necessary. The New York Times first reported on Monday that the Pentagon was considering sending a brigade combat team to support the ongoing operations. “Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division Maj Gen Brandon Tegtmeier and his ‘command element,’ members of his headquarters staff, have been ordered to deploy to the Middle East as the Pentagon and White House weigh whether to send the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East for possible land operations,” Griffin said, adding that speculation abounds as to whether the United States could use American operatives to take control of Kharg Island. U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal that such a deployment would not indicate a definite decision to put “boots on the ground” in Iran, but would provide additional leverage for American military assets, should they need to take control of strategically-located islands or use force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The news comes amid competing narratives between President Trump — who said on Monday that talks with some Iranian officials had been “productive” — and officials within the Iranian regime, who say that no such talks have taken place. The 82nd Airborne Division has long been the Army’s elite rapid-response team, specializing in airborne-assault operations and able to deploy anywhere in the world within 24 hours or less. Created in 1917 and designated as Airborne in 1942, the 82nd is known as the “All-American Division” and executed the first parachute jumps behind enemy lines in Italy in 1943. Within two years, they had parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and played a key role in halting the German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge.

'I couldn't make it through 90 minutes'

A group of Republican senators is pitching President Donald Trump on a plan to fund part of the currently shut-down Department of Homeland Security, while allowing for a future party line budget bill to cover deportations later. Republicans already acceded to Democrat demands in February, when they agreed to separate the DHS funding bill from a package of bills funding other federal agencies. But does this approach have a chance of ending a five-week shutdown? It’s not clear yet, but key Republican stakeholders appear to be signing on in support. On Monday evening, Republican Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Bernie Moreno of Ohio, Steve Daines of Montana, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina met with Trump in the White House, where they workshopped a potential deal to reopen DHS. The agency has been shut down since Feb. 14, as Democrats have repeatedly blocked funding bills while demanding restraints on immigration law enforcement. The funding cut-off has strained airport security, causing travel delays across the country. Spotted: Senator Graham, Daines, Britt at White House. pic.twitter.com/E601VkylxK— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) March 23, 2026 On Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who was not at the meeting, described it as a “very positive, productive meeting” based on the information he had received. The next day he said he had sent an offer to Democrats “to fund 94 percent of the DHS budget,” while leaving out new funding for deportations. Another budget reconciliation bill could be used if necessary to provide additional funding. Budget reconciliation allows for Congress to enact major changes to fiscal policy and can be passed with a simple majority in the Senate. Thune said the Republicans who spoke with Trump “made a compelling case and argument for why this is a big win,” and argued to him that another reconciliation bill could fund deportations and help force a requirement of photo identification in elections. Trump has demanded that any deal with Democrats involve passage of the SAVE America Act, which would require photo ID and proof of citizenship in federal elections. Republicans would face challenges in attempting to change election policy through reconciliation, since the process’ rules exclude provisions which are more policy-oriented than budgetary. Pushback One Republican senator expressed dissatisfaction with the news of a proposal leaving out new deportation funding. “We shouldn’t be giving Democrats an inch for their insane hostage-taking at Homeland Security,” the senator said in a statement to The Daily Signal. On talks to incorporate elements of the SAVE America Act into reconciliation, the senator declared, “We shouldn’t accept ‘we’ll do it later in reconciliation’ as an excuse for failure to pass voter ID, which is before the Senate right now and is supported by 83% of Americans.” NEW: Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) says he is a hard no on any DHS deal that allows ICE’s deportation wing to go unfunded, as is reportedly being discussed as a framework. “This doesn’t make any sense with me. Democrats shut down the government cause they want to give amnesty to…— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) March 24, 2026 Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., similarly came out as critic of the proposal on Tuesday. “This doesn’t make any sense with me,” he said. “Democrats shut down the government because they want to give amnesty to illegals. I don’t agree with that. They don’t want to fund the part that protects Americans from illegal aliens committing crimes?” The proposal also might hit speedbumps in the House, where the hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus has already released a harshly critical statement calling it “a total failure” which hands “a victory to the open-borders amnesty crowd.” Funding everything at DHS except actual immigration enforcement and deportations is a total failure.Senate Republicans aren't shifting Democrats our way — they're handing a victory to the open-borders amnesty crowd. https://t.co/37wg76rinR— House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) March 24, 2026 A Republican Senate staffer, however, told The Daily Signal the proposal is an example of Republicans “having to be the ones getting stuff done here,” and that it appears to have momentum. The Next Big, Beautiful Bill House Republicans have been talking for months about another party line reconciliation bill to advance conservative budgetary policy and their “affordability” agenda. The Senate’s discussions with Trump might provide momentum for that push.  At their March retreat in Doral, Florida, House Republicans attempted to find consensus on goals for a potential second reconciliation bill. Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., told The Daily Signal on Tuesday that there could be renewed interest in reconciliation due to the Senate’s maneuvering. “Keeping that vehicle alive turned out to be quite a bit more relevant right now,” Moore told The Daily Signal. Moore is a member of the House appropriations committee, which leads the charge in funding federal agencies each year. Republicans used reconciliation to bypass this bipartisan process and inject funding into border security and defense in July 2025 with the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” One difficulty of using reconciliation to fund agencies is that it does not allow for legislative provisions to provide direction on how exactly the agency must spend the money. Moore acknowledged to The Daily Signal that reconciliation is imperfect, especially when it comes to defense. The Pentagon has been readying a multi-billion-dollar supplemental funding request for the war in Iran. “I have more cause for pause and hesitation putting defense money into reconciliation,” Moore told The Daily Signal. “Because that has been extraordinarily slow to get put onto contract and the money through that process is not being obligated as quickly as we thought.” The White House did not comment on discussions with the senators when asked by The Daily Signal, replying, “We would refer you to the President’s comments.” However, a White House official said Tuesday morning that the proposal “seems to be an acceptable solution,” per Politico. The post Republicans Pitch Trump on Funding All of DHS but Deportations appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Ahead of the 2026 midterms, polling from a critical swing state found that President Donald Trump is retaining a vast majority of his voting base. A new League of American Workers survey showed that 85% of Wisconsin voters who voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 remain favorable of the president after he announced the commencement of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Only 9% of the 658 respondents who stated they voted for Trump in 2024 indicated that they regret making that decision, while only 6% of voters remain undecided. While support within his base remains high, the poll indicated that in total, only 38% of the 1495 voters surveyed approve of the president’s job. The president’s approval rating could be linked to the war in Iran, the poll indicated, as 50% of the voters surveyed marked that they oppose the president’s military campaign against Iran. While the respondents’ approval of the Iran campaign is a tight split, the poll found that more respondents favor having a Democrat Congress come January 2027: 45% of voters would rather see the Democratic Party in control of Congress, compared to 41% who said they would rather see the Republican Party in the majority. While Republicans are trailing Democrats at the national level, the upcoming gubernatorial race is much tighter. Only 40% of voters surveyed in the poll have indicated that they will vote for Mandela Barnes, the former lieutenant governor, if he were to win the Democratic nomination on Aug. 11. In 2015, Barnes wrote on X that the now-deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “is #BlackLivesMatter.“ Barnes’ potential Republican opponent, Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., who leads the Republican Primary, is trailing Barnes by only 2%. Fifteen percent of respondents remain undecided. However, if the governor’s race were to be a potential matchup between Tiffany and current Democratic Lieutenant Governor Sara Rodriguez, 44% of respondents stated that they would back Rodriguez, compared to the 41% of voters who pledged to support Tiffany. Rodriguez previously beat Barnes in the Democratic Primary for Lieutenant Governor in 2022. Another Democrat primary candidate, former Wisconsin State Assemblyman David Crowley, leads Tiffany in a general election by 1%. Tiffany’s most advantageous matchup in a general election, according to the poll, would be against Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Francesca Hong, who has been endorsed by local chapters of the Democratic Socialist of America. In a Tiffany versus Hong matchup, Tiffany leads by 3%, with 16% of voters still undecided. The post EXCLUSIVE: Critical Swing State Poll Shows Trump Retains High Support Among Base appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In six minutes and 48 seconds on Monday's Morning Edition newscast, NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson offered a eulogy to Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director and special counsel in the "Russian collusion" probe of Trump. The collusion probe was the final third of the segment. JOHNSON: Trump called the investigation a witch hunt. Republicans in Congress started to attack the investigators. Republican lawmaker Steve Chabot pointed out several lawyers on the Mueller team had donated to Democratic candidates. STEVE CHABOT (R-Ohio): How, with a straight face, can you say that this group of Democrat partisans are unbiased and will give President Trump a fair shake? JOHNSON: In the end, the team was able to complete its investigation. They charged 37 people and entities, including former campaign Chair Paul Manafort, national security adviser Michael Flynn and 25 Russians. Trump went on to grant clemency to some of those people. The Justice Department later walked away from many of the cases. When Mueller delivered his long report, he said it spoke for itself. But Democrats wanted more and insisted he testify. This passage requires some fact-checking. Washington Post checker Glenn Kessler found 13 of 17 Mueller staffers were registered Democrats, and nine of them were Democrat donors. Six of them donated to Hillary Clinton. Andrew Weissman, the power behind Mueller's throne, attended Hillary's election-night party in 2016. The staff could clearly be painted as partisan. Then notice how Johnson cited as a Mueller accomplishment that they "charged 37 people and entities," including "25 Russians." None of those Russians were coming to America for legal action, so that was just sound and fury signifying nothing. People who pled guilty (like Manafort) weren't guilty of collusion, but of crimes like tax evasion and bank fraud.  Then NPR shamelessly replayed audio from a 2019 ad from Tom Steyer's group "Need to Impeach." Steyer was running for president in the Democrat primaries at the time, but NPR left all that detail out. A reluctant witness, Mueller once again fulfilled his duty. He was visibly older, a bit hard of hearing and mostly refused to take the bait from politicians. Mueller said he didn't make a judgment about whether Trump obstructed justice but said he couldn't exonerate the president either. There was enough damaging information for a group supporting impeachment to cut this ad featuring questions from Democrats and Mueller's terse replies. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) UNIDENTIFIED LAWMAKER #1: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president? MUELLER: No. UNIDENTIFIED LAWMAKER #2: Isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful? MUELLER: Generally. UNIDENTIFIED LAWMAKER #3: You believe that you could charge the president United States with obstruction of justice after he left office? MUELLER: Yes. JOHNSON: As Mueller left the Capitol building after an exhausting day he had tried to avoid, a man approached the former Marine. "Semper fi," the man said. "Semper fi," Mueller replied. Carrie Johnson, NPR News. MICHEL MARTIN, host: On Truth Social this weekend, President Trump said, and I quote, "good, I'm glad he's dead."

All of the top Democratic candidates running for governor of California accused the University of Southern California and KABC-TV of being racist against the minority candidates after none of them met the criteria to join a debate.Two Republicans and four Democrats met the standard to appear in a debate scheduled for Tuesday, but some of the lower-tier candidates complained that those who qualified were all white. The criteria is a mix of polling performance and campaign donations.'Democrats in this state cannot organize anything.'The Democrats who qualified for the debate are former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell, billionaire Tom Steyer, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.According to the New York Times, the candidates left out pointed to Mahan, a white candidate who would not have qualified but for the millions of dollars he has raised in Silicon Valley, as evidence of racial bias."This biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful," former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa railed."We are a minority-majority state, and the idea that the four candidates of color are not going to be on the stage to bring those perspectives, to really speak to those communities, is really not doing right by the voters," said former California Controller Betty Yee."Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective," Porter responded. "I'm disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday's debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.""It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others," Swalwell replied. "USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night."Steyer also accused USC of coming up with "retroactive standards that elevate some candidates that didn't meet the initial criteria" in order to exclude other candidates.Mahan called on the organizers to include four candidates who were excluded and are persons of color: Villaraigosa, Yee, Biden HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond."The organizers of the USC debate must include these qualified candidates, and I ask all my fellow candidates to support this request," he wrote.USC defended the "independence, objectivity, and integrity" of the researcher who created the criteria for the debate and then canceled the debate.Republican candidate Steve Hilton mocked Democrats after the cancellation.RELATED: Swalwell surges in California governor's race — but Republican candidate still leads, says new poll "It's another example that Democrats in this state cannot organize anything. ... This is a really important debate about the future of our state," Hilton said. People want to hear from the candidates, especially in such a crowded field, but yet again, the needs of the insiders, the Democrats, come before the needs of the people."One recent poll shows Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco taking the lead at 17% and 16% respectively, while Swalwell and Porter tie at 13%. Steyer comes in fifth place with 10% support. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!