Former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is a policy wonk deserving of a seat in Congress
If you’re a fan of political drama, the March primary election for the U.S. House seat representing Silicon Valley gave you everything you could ask for.
Two contenders — state Assembly Member Evan Low and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian — tied for second place with 30,249 votes in their bid to face off against former San Jose Mayor and frontrunner Sam Liccardo in the November general election for the 16th Congressional District seat.
It was the first tie in a House race since California began using the top-two system in 2012. Initially, all three Democrats were set to advance to the general election.
Then Jonathan Padilla, a former Liccardo mayoral campaign staffer who’d donated to Liccardo’s congressional campaign, requested a recount — and formed an independent expenditure committee to cover the $300,000 cost. Padilla said he’d filed the request on behalf of Low — under state law, a voter must request a recount on behalf of a specific candidate — but emphasized that he was not coordinating or communicating with any candidate or campaign.
Low fervently denied any connection to the request. In fact, his campaign attempted to halt the recount, denouncing it as a “page right out of Trump’s political playbook.” Ultimately, however, Low emerged victorious, eking out a five-vote win over Simitian.
The drama didn’t end there. Two federal elections complaints were filed against Liccardo, alleging he concealed his ties to the committee that paid for the recount. Liccardo has maintained that he didn’t request the recount and didn’t communicate with Padilla or committee donors about it.
Ann Ravel, former chairperson of the Federal Elections Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission, told the editorial board that Low’s allies were weaponizing the federal election complaint process by submitting baseless allegations.
“There was nothing illegal about what (Liccardo) had done,” Ravel said.
What should be more concerning to voters, Ravel said, is that state ethics investigators in 2020 opened a probe into Low after he stopped disclosing donors to a nonprofit organization affiliated with the Legislature’s tech caucus, which he leads.
As juicy as this saga has been, it has obscured the fact that only one candidate in this race has the policy chops for Congress — and that’s Liccardo.
In his endorsement interview with us, Liccardo displayed an impressive understanding of complex issues ranging from community solar projects’ role in greening California’s energy grid to federal funding limitations for mental health facilities. He delights in nitty-gritty details and data-driven research — as evidenced by a 53-page book he put together outlining potential solutions for his three policy priorities: homelessness, crime and the cost of living — and has a game plan for his time in Congress, including joining the Problem Solvers’ Caucus to advocate for bipartisan solutions.
Low, on the other hand, spoke largely in platitudes and repeatedly noted that, if elected, he would be the first openly gay and Chinese American official to represent Northern California in Congress.
This would indeed be a milestone worth celebrating. But Low’s lack of a concrete policy platform — paired with his incendiary rhetoric surrounding the recount — suggests that he’s more interested in his political ascent than he is in pursuing meaningful policy.
Voters should send Liccardo to Congress.