One Party Rule Skews Politics in the Bay Area: Progressives Face Erasure

 When Procedure Becomes Punishment: The East Bay’s Censure Politics and the National Democratic Crack-Up

In December, 2024 the Emeryville city council majority took a controversial and precedent setting move to censure and sanction their colleague Kalimah Priforce for being late on his FPPC filings, a harsh sentence considering many council members over the years have run afoul of the FPPC schedule and that the accusers themselves were also revealed to be late on their own FPPC filings.  Nonetheless, Mr Priforce was released from his censure and sanction in January as per City Hall rules.  But his colleagues on the council are still not satisfied.  So they have now moved to block the Councilman from all boards and committees as well as all regional boards and committees, the same punishment as when they placed him under official sanction but this time without the benefit of a legal vote to sanction.  Mr Priforce, the only progressive on the council and unsurprisingly also the most popular council member, is under permanent censure and sanction, put there by his conservative colleagues without transparency and accountability.  They have done so because of Mr Priforce’s progressive populist politics and because they can.  

It is no coincidence that Emeryville’s Council member Priforce, a Democratic Socialist, is shunned by the centrist majority establishment at the Democratic Party of Alameda County and in the region.  Indeed, politics outside Emeryville’s borders is controlling the anti-Priforce narrative and dictating a project of action against our Council member.  To understand why the politics in Emeryville is so mean and skewed against the popular Kalimah Priforce, one needs to look outside our little town.  

Mayor Kaur's latest silencing of Mr Priforce for asking questions “at the wrong time”  (covered by the Tattler)  is part of this new censure and sanction culture among the Corporate Democrat majority against a progressive Democrat that’s happening now around the whole Bay Area.

News Analysis

If you want to understand a political era, don’t start with campaign slogans. Start with process: who gets heard, who gets disciplined, and who gets told—explicitly or implicitly—that their job is to sit down and comply.

In Emeryville, Council member Kalimah Priforce’s formal censure brought by his four Council colleagues in 2024 may have ended on paper, but close observers realize it persists in practice—as a “shadow censure,” an unofficial regime where the status quo remains: the same narrowing of debate, the same chilling of oversight, and the same public scolding deployed as a governing style.  The four couldn’t defeat him at the polls (he won with the highest vote percentage among all five Council members), so this is how they take him down.

Igor Tregub
Chair of the Alameda County Democratic Party
He signed an anti-ceasefire in Gaza letter for the 
right wing Jewish Community Relations Council.

The city’s newest mayor, Sukhdeep Kaur, has become a focal point of that critique after a council meeting exchange in which Priforce sought to ask questions of staff during deliberations—a routine practice in many cities, and historically in Emeryville. Instead, he was admonished from the dais. Residents in the room pushed back, arguing the rebuke was out of line and selective. The episode is now preserved in the meeting record.

The immediate question is simple: Why is a Council member being disciplined for doing the job voters elected them to do—asking questions, interrogating assumptions, working in such a manner as to empower citizens and demanding clarity?

The larger question is bigger: Is Emeryville becoming a local case study in how centrist Democratic majorities use ‘decorum' and ‘censure’ to suppress democratic-socialist dissent—rather than defeat it on policy?

And if that sounds dramatic, look north to Richmond—where this same political epistemology is being tested, argued over, and normalized.

From ‘Accountability’ to Containment

Kalimah Priforce
 Emeryville City Council Member
A progressive Democrat, he voted for a ceasefire
in Gaza.  He's got a target on his back, put there
by establishment Democrats.  Priforce is the 
most popular council member in Emeryville.

Censure is often described as a tool of accountability. But in practice, it can function as something else: a vote of institutional ostracism by a domineering majority—a formal declaration that a colleague is outside the circle of legitimate participation.

That was the vibe in Emeryville when the Council majority voted to censure Mr  Priforce after a heated, highly attended meeting that local outlets framed as political theater and civic dysfunction.   East Bay Insider, a center right political Substack platform, described the special meeting as raucous and reported Mr Priforce argued the council provided no evidence of wrongdoing.

The Emeryville Tattler went further, portraying the episode as political punishment made possible by a structural flaw: Emeryville’s ethics enforcement is largely internal—City Council judging City Council—without an independent ethics commission to create a firewall between politics and discipline.

That structural critique matters because it points to the heart of the “shadow censure” argument: when a body can discipline a member without meaningful independent review, “ethics” can become a weapon—especially when power is held by a stable establishment majority and the target is a lone progressive dissenter.

Even critics of Priforce should be able to recognize the danger. If a council can define ‘decorum’ as ‘don’t embarrass the majority’, then democracy becomes stage-managed compliance.

Emeryville’s Long Political Backstory: Redevelopment, Power, and Whom City Hall Serves

This fight didn’t begin with one personality clash or one mayoral gavel.

Emeryville’s modern identity has been shaped by redevelopment-era politics: aggressive commercial transformation, land deals ostensibly in the public interest and a model of governance that often treated this model of growth as an unquestioned public good.

The City’s own redevelopment history notes that Emeryville’s redevelopment plans date back decades (including a 1976 plan and the Shellmound Park redevelopment plan adopted in 1987).  That redevelopment focus included major projects like Bay Street, built on land tied to heavy industrial contamination and the layered history of the Shellmound area.

Sukhdeep Kaur
Emeryville Mayor
She's leading a charge in Emeryville to
erase the progressive Democrat,
Council member Kalimah Priforce.

UC Berkeley alumni and documentary filmmaker Andrés Cediel documented the Shellmound controversy directly in a 2005 documentary examining the Native American cultural archeology that was destroyed and buried under Bay Street development.  KQED too has reported on how the Bay Area shellmounds—central to Ohlone life and burial practices—were erased through rapacious development across the region.

That history matters because Emeryville’s political center of gravity has long tilted toward pro-development governance skewed towards connected developers—a tendency documented by academic and policy observers who describe how redevelopment tools (subsidies, tax incentives, land assembly) were deployed to remake the city’s economy.  A landmark labor-oriented report by EBASE, a locally based social justice organization, on Emeryville redevelopment likewise treated the city’s boom as a political-economic project with winners and losers—not simply ‘growth’.

So when residents today watch City Hall clamp down on the council member who’s politics are most associated with anti-corporate populism—tenant protections, accountability rhetoric, and ‘people first’, especially working people—they read it not as a random interpersonal conflict, but as continuity: a city political machine defending its equilibrium.

Richmond’s Mirror: Censure Politics Goes Regional

In January 2026, the City of Richmond became the regional mirror of this new politics.

A proposed Richmond resolution formally censuring Mayor Eduardo Martinez described alleged conduct in sweeping moral and civic terms and sought to censure and bind the mayor to trainings and structured engagement.  Mr Martinez had forwarded an internet post that was construed as anti-semitic, a transgression he said he had done inadvertently and without malice and for which he apologized publicly.   The press covered competing narratives: harm and accountability on one side, and claims of political targeting and silencing on the other.

ABC channel 7 quoted Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) leadership calling for accountability, while also quoting Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) arguing Mayor Martinez was being targeted because of his pro-Palestinian advocacy and that the response should not be “isolation or silencing”.

KQED reported Rabbi Julie Saxe-Taller of Temple Beth Hillel describing the posts as “shocking” and outlining fear within a small community, while also emphasizing the value of conversation and learning over immediate resignation demands.

Local News Matters later reported that the council did not ultimately adopt the censure resolution that night, instead advancing a separate “atonement plan” proposed by Martinez—while the censure item was pushed to a future meeting amid procedural wrangling about agenda order and time.

This is the pattern: whether in Emeryville, Richmond or elsewhere in the Bay Area; censure fights become proxy wars over legitimacy—who gets to speak, what counts as acceptable politics, and whether the institution will rehabilitate dissent or punish it.

‘Shadow Censure’ as Governing Style

In Emeryville, the claim now is that formal censure has given way to something quieter but arguably more corrosive: procedural discipline as a daily operating system.

What does that look like?

-Questions treated as disruption.

-Rules interpreted narrowly only when one member presses too hard.

-Public reprimands that signal to staff and colleagues: don’t engage the dissenter.

-A majority bloc that governs by denying oxygen rather than winning debate.

When ‘process’ becomes punishment, the public loses twice: once because oversight is weakened, and again because the whole council learns to fear conflict more than it fears being wrong.

Why This Is Happening Now: The National Rise of Populist Socialists—and Establishment Democratic Failure on Affordability

To understand why these fights are intensifying, zoom out.

Across the U.S., democratic-socialist and populist-left politics have grown—not because of a TikTok algorithm, but because material conditions are crushing people, and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party has offered promises that don’t cash out in daily life.

Start with housing:

-Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies reports that renter cost burdens have hit record highs, with tens of millions of households paying unaffordable shares of income.

-HUD reported more than 770,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024, the highest on record, and an 18% increase from 2023.

-California’s affordability crisis remains structurally entrenched, as the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office continues to track persistent housing-cost pressures.

-Multiple sources show a majority of California renters are cost-burdened (paying >30% of income toward housing), which turns “affordability” from a talking point into a lived emergency.

So when establishment Democrats run on affordability and inclusion while housing costs, homelessness, and rent burdens continue climbing, many voters conclude: the establishment is performing progressivism, not delivering it.

That’s the fuel.

Now add the organizational fact:

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has expanded dramatically since 2016—DSA’s own “State of DSA” notes that the organization is more than ten times larger than a decade ago, with the overwhelming majority of members joining after 2016.  It’s no coincidence that our own Kalimah Priforce, a DSA member, is the most popular politician in Emeryville.

This growth is not an abstraction. It translates into local races, local canvasses, and local governing fights. And it triggers establishment backlash—often framed as “responsible governance,” but experienced by insurgents as containment.

International media coverage of insurgent socialist campaigns (including New York’s) has highlighted both the appeal—rent freezes, transit affordability, public options—and the counterattack: establishment officials and aligned donors treating left candidates as existential threats rather than internal debate partners.

In other words: the ‘anti–Zohran Mamdani’ sentiment is not really about one person.  It is about a broader insurgency that threatens the donor-mediated equilibrium of the Democratic Party.

The East Bay Version of a National Story

What makes Emeryville and Richmond important is not that they are famous. It’s that they are legible.

They show how a centrist establishment Democratic majority manages a left insurgent when it cannot easily remove them: not by debating them, but by disciplining them.  Not by winning policy, but by controlling procedure.

And if that is what is happening—if Emeryville City Council rules are being applied selectively, if deliberation is being narrowed, if censure logic is lingering as ‘shadow censure’—then Emeryville isn’t just having a personality conflict:  it’s rehearsing a regional and national fight inside a five-seat chamber.

The question for residents, then, is not whether they like any particular Council member.  The question is whether they want a city government where asking hard questions is treated as misconduct.  Because if procedure becomes punishment, the next target won’t be a democratic socialist.  It will be the general public—finding out, too late, that the Council no longer debates anything that matters.