Editorial: It’s time for Senate candidates Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez to get specific

It’s Democrat versus Democrat in the race to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. From a pool of 34 candidates, state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Orange) head to the November runoff to determine who will fill California’s first open U.S. Senate seat in nearly a quarter of a century.

The two women easily beat the other candidates, with the next in line, Republican Duf Sundheim, winning just 8% of the vote – far less than Harris’ 40% or Sanchez’s 18.5%. That two Democrats could end up facing one another in the general election is the result of California’s relatively new system that sends the top two finishers in an open primary to the general election regardless of party affiliation.

But just because they’re from the same party doesn’t mean Harris and Sanchez are identical, or even that they share a common ideology. In California, there is a real breadth to the Democratic Party, from the tax-more-and-spend-more policies pushed by Bernie Sanders to the penny-pinching ways of Gov. Jerry Brown; from the aggressive climate change agenda espoused by billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer to the go-slow approach of the so-called moderate Democrats in the Legislature.

Yet the Senate race so far has been dull and uneventful, revealing few meaningful political differences between Harris and Sanchez. It’s been a contest based largely on resumes and endorsements and bite-sized policy pronouncements that often don’t go beyond the obvious or the expected. It’s time for that to change. The next five months ought to be about policies and priorities.

It would be good, for example, to hear the candidates explain in greater depth their views on free trade, which has become a political third rail for Democrats during this election cycle. Trade is one of the major economic engines of the state, particularly in Southern California. Both candidates oppose President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty, saying it doesn’t do enough to protect jobs and the environment. But what does that mean? Would they reflexively oppose trade deals going forward? If not, what does the right trade treaty look like, and can it be negotiated (since all trade agreements are negotiations between the U.S. and partners that often have very different priorities)? Does California lose or gain more if TPP is not adopted? Does the country win or lose?

They also ought to speak more clearly on their environmental positions. Yes, both are committed to slowing climate change, but which policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions would they support, and which would be a step too far? An end to fracking? A carbon tax? And what about California’s drought and water supply challenges? Do they support Brown’s proposed tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta? Sanchez has said that every option should be on the table, including building new dams and changing the Endangered Species Act, which has been used to limit water releases and restrict pumping water to farmers and others in order to protect the fish, such as the delta smelt and Chinook salmon. Harris, however, has said she would not support changing the Endangered Species Act, but wants to protect agricultural interests nevertheless. What does that mean? How will California’s next senator strike the balance between the demands of farmers, fishermen and environmentalists?

Both candidates support comprehensive immigration reform, but if a truly comprehensive package can’t move forward in Congress, what incremental changes would they advocate, if any? What changes to legal immigration are needed? And how would they address the federal deficit, which is growing again after several years of decline?

Both Harris and Sanchez have said, in broad terms, that they are wary of U.S. military intervention abroad. But how should the U.S. respond to the threat posed by ISIS? Do they support drawing down U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as Obama has planned, or maintaining the current level, as some military and diplomatic experts have urged? Does the president need a new authorization of military force to continue the fight against ISIS? If so, what limits, if any, should Congress set for the president? What should the U.S. do with the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which Obama has pledged to close?

Some voters may feel like Democrat versus Democrat is really no choice at all. But that doesn’t have to be the case. There are shades of blue, and voters deserve a robust debate of the issues to decide which Democrat they prefer.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook