In response to “Community Voices: Representation Matters, and We’re Supporting Grace Garner in Palm Springs District 1” (Oct. 10):

I have been actively involved in the LGBTQ community for decades, since the Stonewall era as a New York University student living down the street from the Stonewall Inn in the riot aftermath. Being LGBTQ then was illegal, with individuals and subject to arrest, beatings, imprisonment and/or psychiatric incarceration. (Being homosexual was deemed to be a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, and grounds for institutionalization.)

Without any rights or agency, LGBTQ people lived in fear. But our nascent community united, organized and fought back, and through much pain and hardship over the years, we have made significant gains by taking to the streets and to the voting booths, fighting in legislative bodies and in the courts, and changing public opinion.

Last month, my husband and I were asked to host the annual LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus dinner at our home. This group is the U.S. congressional caucus for all LGBTQ congresspeople. In the afternoon, my husband and I were honored to privately meet with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and in the evening, my husband and I had the pleasure of welcoming the caucus, its members and supporters from throughout the nation. Along with others, I introduced the local LGBTQ office holders, and those seeking office, including Scott Nevins. Speakers included Reps. Maxine Waters and Hakeem Jeffries, along with a national list of current LGBTQ congresspeople, including Rep. David Cicilline, who is chair of the caucus, and new LGBTQ candidates running for Congress.

I held back the tears, remembering the helplessness of the Stonewall era, recalling all the hard work we have done since, and now experiencing the empowerment that the LGBTQ Congressional Caucus engenders. Although still seriously underrepresented in our nation’s political institutions, the LGBTQ community finally and proudly has a place at the table. The message of the speakers that evening was clear: Embrace the principle of helping one another as a unified community in the arc of LGBTQ struggle and progress. And now, the winds of repression loom as we face a polarized nation, with our rights and legal protections at serious risk. This is a time for us remain united as an LGBTQ community and insist on our rightful place in the political process, without apology.

The article, unfortunately, does not unite our community. It is divisive and fractionalizes by dismissing a qualified LGBTQ candidate as unworthy of office simply because he is LGBTQ. To quote the article, “LGBTQ people are lacking neither representation nor power in Palm Springs.” It seems that there are those who believe that there are too many LGBTQ office holders and/or too many LGBTQ people seeking office. Let’s be clear: There are never too many LGBTQ officials or candidates. To suggest otherwise is harmful to the LGBTQ community and does not represent a path forward, as it denigrates those LGBTQ people running for office and the LGBTQ base that supports them. To attack a legitimate LGBTQ candidate in our city for being LGBTQ is dangerous. It opens the door to further delegitimize LGBTQ candidates and to further disenfranchise voters.

We certainly need to provide support for other minorities outside and within our community who seek political office as well, mindful that access to the political process is important to many groups of diversity, including intersectionality within the LGBTQ community. We must help others gain a political voice and achieve political success, albeit never by pitting one group against another, both outside and within our LGBTQ community, never by denigrating. That’s not what we do.

In the final analysis, the real issue in this specific local election is not the demographics, but ultimately each candidate’s record and vision, for District 1 and for our city, and each candidate’s ability to act as a unifying force in the district. Has the incumbent, Grace Garner, produced results for District 1? Has she effectuated positive outcomes for her constituents, providing the district with a unified focus? If so, the voters in her district will re-elect her. If not, then the voters have the right to vote against her. Has the challenger, Scott Nevins, brought forth a record of leadership, and does he have specific plans to enhance and act as a unifier in District 1? Has he provided a new roadmap focused on results for his future constituents? If so, then the voters have the right to elect him. If not, then the voters have the right to vote against him.

The issue of demographics ignores the core issue of the election: Who has the ability, passion, energy, desire and ideas to better serve District 1 on the City Council? This defines Scott’s campaign, focusing on the record and the vision to unify the district and produce positive outcomes. Let us all focus on that kind of debate, rather than deny the challenger for being LGBTQ. This is what democracy is supposed to look like: two or more candidates debating the issues, giving the voters information about the candidates’ records and positions, and then having the voters determine whom they select to be the best candidate.

We are a system that should encourage candidates from all communities to run and present their ideas, based on quality debate of those ideas, where informed voters decide which candidate is best to serve. Anything else undermines our communities and elections.

P.S. For clarification, the LGBTQ Victory Fund endorsed Scott Nevins in this race, and Equality California did not endorse any candidate. The article seemed to suggest otherwise.

Rich Weissman is a retired data scientist/researcher with expertise in data modeling and demographic/political analysis. He now devotes his time as director of his charitable fund, supporting organizations and activities that empower minority groups, including LGBTQ people, women, people of color, religious minorities, immigrants and others, to fight against homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism and other forms of intolerance. As an additional component, the fund supports animal rights and rescue. Rich also works as a volunteer data scientist at The Center for New Data, an organization fighting voter suppression nationwide. Rich and his husband live in Palm Springs, and are the proud parents of their wonderful children, dog and granddogs.

Community Voices: Palm Springs Voters Should Select a Representative Based on Who Will Best Serve Them, Not Demographics is a story from Coachella Valley Independent, the Coachella Valley’s alternative news source.