It shouldn’t be like this in Santa Clarita. The 2026 election cycle has brought upon our fair community multiple instances of dirty politics, potentially libelous campaign advertisements, anonymous hit pieces, false allegations of impropriety and false representations of supposedly nonpartisan impartiality.
It’s turned out to be a shameful episode that is, regrettably, emblematic of how far American society has fallen into the depths of name-calling, misinformation, disinformation and just a general lack of decency.
Examples abound, and here are a few:
Perhaps no local candidate has been more falsely represented by opposition campaigning than Denise Lite, who we endorsed for the City Council seat representing District 2.
We mentioned in a previous endorsement editorial that we received letters to the editor making false accusations about Lite. The letters were sent to us under a fake name, and we know who it was. That person is very well-connected locally and there seems to be a nexus between that individual and other attacks against Lite by what is clearly a very influential political machine.
Lite has been attacked in mailers promoting her opponent Gloria Mercado-Fortine — who says she knew nothing of the hit pieces. A mailer attacking Lite draws the ridiculous conclusion that, as a family law attorney, Lite “specializes” in separating children from their families.
And, in another series of online attack pieces, the Substack called redfilecalifornia commits verbal violence against Lite with a three-part series tearing Lite down, including one piece under the headline, “Denise Lite and the Racial Politics of Retribution.”
Painting Lite in such a light — if you’ll pardon the expression — is beyond the pale.
The same Substack has another piece glowingly heaping praise upon Mercado-Fortine, and featuring a cartoon positively portraying sitting council members Bill Miranda and Patsy Ayala.
All of the blog’s articles — whether in favor of a candidate or attacking one — feature comic-style cartoons of the candidates, portraying some in the ugliest light possible while glamorizing those that the blog favors.
Then there’s the supposedly “nonpartisan” voter information guide operated by Brett Haddoack, a candidate for the District 2 seat on the City Council.
While his website isn’t an “attack” site, per se, it’s deceptive in its attempt to be seen as “nonpartisan.” It’s clearly partisan, and portrays liberal/progressive candidates in the most positive light possible, and tags Republican or conservative candidates with negative portrayals and bold “MAGA” tags that are clearly meant to be disparaging. The site even claims some candidates are “endorsed” by MAGA, which is actually impossible because there is no such organization as MAGA. It’s a campaign slogan.
So, Haddoack’s site is a lie. It’s not “nonpartisan.” It clearly is, very much, partisan.
It’s especially loathsome that Haddoack is running such a misleading site while actively running for office himself.
And yet, that’s not even the most offensive thing we’ve seen in the local politicking of 2026. Hopefully the negative campaigning — locally and elsewhere — backfires in Tuesday’s midterm elections.
It’s fine to take a side. We do — on the Opinion page. And we strive to do so in a rational, clear, concise way that clearly explains where we agree, and where we disagree, with one candidate or another.
But these hit mailers, websites and blog posts resort to the worst kind of name-calling, misinformation and disinformation, all of which have become all too commonplace in the era of social media and anonymous keyboard warriors.
It’s not what we want to see in our own little corner of L.A. County that some local wags call “Mayberry.”
Indeed. Mayberry seems long gone.
