This California election features two unqualified candidates for a misunderstood post

California has more statewide offices than qualified candidates for them. The campaign for state superintendent of public instruction is a case in point.

The campaign for the nonpartisan office pits an unpopular incumbent, Tony Thurmond, against Lance Christensen, a conservative activist.

A Democratic former state legislator, city councilman and school board member in the Bay Area, Thurmond wasn’t particularly qualified to be state superintendent when he first ran for the office four years ago. But he was narrowly elected with the support of the state’s teachers’ unions, which threw their millions behind him.

None of that gave him the management and policy skills to be effective in his current role. Consequently, Thurmond has presided over an exodus of experienced policy leadership from the California Department of Education, which he oversees. He’s been accused of creating a “toxic workplace” and generated media exposés littered with critics who found his management and policy credentials wanting.

Thurmond has also shown terrible judgment in hiring. He recruited an old friend to fill a deputy superintendent post that paid nearly $180,000, for example — even though his pal was living in Pennsylvania.

Some of this is a byproduct of an elected office that shouldn’t be. It would be better to allow governors to appoint real education experts with management training to the post. Thurmond’s widely misunderstood job is to run the state Education Department and manage its 1,500 employees. It cries out for a policy wonk or management type, not a politician.

Though nominally nonpartisan, the office is practically anything but that. Recent races for the post became political and financial battles between teacher unions and business interests supporting charter schools.

This year’s race involves nowhere near the amount of money expended four years ago, when Thurmond beat charter school champion Marshall Tuck. In 2018, more than $30 million was spent in support of Tuck, while the unions spent millions more on Thurmond. This year, Christensen has raised a little more than $100,000, according to campaign finance records, while Thurmond has raised roughly $522,000.

The big-money charter school spenders are sitting this race out. There also appears to be little enthusiasm around Thurmond.

The superintendent all but disappeared during the pandemic partly because most of the authority in such a crisis falls to the governor and Legislature.

Similarly, when Thurmond tried to insert himself into the Sacramento City Unified School District’s eight-day teachers’ strike this year, he was rightly rebuffed by Superintendent Jorge Aguilar. Local authorities hold most of the power over school budgets.

Even if he meant well, all Thurmond accomplished was to make life harder for Aguilar. Given that he was heavily financed by teachers’ unions, he couldn’t be perceived as a neutral broker.

Unfortunately, Thurmond’s Republican opponent is also unfit for the office. During an interview with McClatchy’s California editorial boards, Christensen told Thurmond he should apologize for public school closings during the pandemic. That means he is either ignorant of the fact that the closures were up to other officials or he doesn’t care, neither of which is good. Christensen also seemed to have trouble justifiably criticizing excessive school closures without wrongly suggesting that pandemic precautions were broadly unnecessary.

Our endorsement just barely goes to Thurmond, who is likely to win because those once motivated to beat him are staying home. The hope is that he does as little damage as possible before the Legislature and voters address the structural problems with his office.

This story was originally published October 8, 2022 at 5:30 AM.