The Only Independent in Congress Wants Five Debates. His Democratic Opponent Won’t Commit to One.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – US Rep. Kevin Kiley (NPP), the only sitting member of the US House registered independent of a party, says his general election opponent in California’s 6th Congressional District, Dr. Richard Pan, refuses to debate him.

“I almost feel sorry for him,” Kiley posted on X. “He thought he could coast into office on Newsom's gerrymander. No one explained to him that people still get to vote.”

He shared an interview with Dr. Pan, in which the Democrat and former state senator was asked about a challenge to at least 5 debates throughout the congressional district. Pan said, “We’re going to have an ongoing conversation.”

“That’s what’s most important. That the voters know who they get to vote for and what each of us stand for.”

Pan added that he will make sure this happens by Election Day. However, he did not address the congressman’s challenge directly.

Kiley is currently the representative for California’s 3rd Congressional District. After the district boundaries were changed under Proposition 50 in 2025, he chose to run for re-election in the newly-redrawn 6th District and in March left the Republican Party to be an independent.

CA-3 was among the most drastically altered districts under Prop 50, which amended the constitution to not only allow the suspension of an independent map, but to allow partisan gerrymandering.

Analysis shows that the district went from R+4 (a relatively competitive seat) to D+12. Cook Political Report has since moved CA-3 to Solid Democrat. But Prop 50 also kept CA-6 Solid D as well.

Notably, 39% of the registered electorate in CA-6 are Democrats compared to the 30.63% registered with the Republican Party. This presents an opening for the 22% of voters registered No Party Preference to decide this race.

It would be an unintended consequence of Prop 50—which was designed to give Democrats 5 additional US House seats. If the map performs as aggressively as some projections suggest, their party could control up to 92% of seats in California’s congressional delegation.

Kiley came in first in the June 2 primary, despite a crowded field of party candidates. And while Democratic consultants and operatives raised alarms mid-count of a Democrat lockout, Dr. Pan got the second spot in the general election.

On June 22, shortly after Kiley and Pan were established as the top two candidates, Kiley issued a 5-debate challenge, arguing that it would prevent the race from being decided by campaign ads, party organization, and outside spending.

“This will assure that this election is a contest of ideas, a contest of ideas that is truly decided by the voters,” he said.

The issues Kiley said he wants Pan to answer for include:

• California’s cost of living and Pan’s support for the 2017 transportation package that increased gasoline taxes and vehicle fees.
• Taxes affecting Social Security income, the child tax credit and state-and-local-tax deductions.
• Housing policy and tax incentives for affordable housing.
• Pan’s support for COVID-era public-health restrictions and California’s prolonged school closures.
• Homelessness, public safety, and energy costs.

In response, Pan’s campaign said it looked forward to “debating ‘MAGA champion’ Kevin Kiley and holding him accountable for voting with Donald Trump 98% of the time,”

However, so far, he has not committed publicly to a time, place, or format for a debate.

It’s important to note that contrary to what Kiley says, Pan hasn’t outright refused to debate him—but the statements from Pan and his campaign embrace the stated purpose of a debate without committing to participating in one.

If an “ongoing conversation” is needed so voters understand the candidates’ positions, Kiley has presented Pan with at least 5 face-to-face opportunities. It would also be a chance for Pan to test Kiley’s declared independence.

Kiley says he left the party out of frustration with hyper-partisanship and gerrymandering.

A debate would give Pan the opportunity to press his argument that Kiley’s new registration is political camouflage, and give Kiley the opportunity to identify the votes, positions, and beliefs on which his independence has amounted to more than a new ballot designation.

So, what’s the holdup?

This dispute is about more than whether two candidates are willing to stand on the same stage. It is about whether a district engineered to favor one party will still produce a competitive general election in which both candidates must answer directly to voters.  

Five debates would give Kiley and Pan opportunities to reach communities across a district spanning portions of Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo counties. They would also allow voters to hear from the candidates outside the ads and party messaging that will increasingly shape the race.

There is no question that Democrats are going into November with a considerable structural advantage. The district is rated Solid D, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans.

But California’s nonpartisan primary advanced an independent incumbent and a Democratic challenger to November, giving No Party Preference voters a potentially meaningful role.

Pan’s campaign argues that Kiley remains a “MAGA champion” and a Republican in all but name. Kiley argues that Pan expects the district’s new boundaries to carry him into office.

A debate stage is where both claims can be tested.

The question is whether Pan will rely on the district’s manufactured partisan advantage—or give voters the opportunity to determine how deserved that advantage is.