Four superintendent candidates survived a light primary turnout. Former S.C. House member and education advocate Molly Spearman will face teacher Sally Atwater, the candidate with a famous Republican last name. On the Democratic side, teacher Sheila Gallagher faces educator Tom Thompson.

For the Republicans, Spearman garnered close to 65,000 votes, or roughly 22 percent of the votes in an eight-way primary. Atwater received nearly the same percentage with a little more that 63,000 votes.

In the Democratic contest, Gallagher received roughly 42,000 of the 115,000 votes cast for close to 36 percent of the primary, whereas Thompson garnered 26 percent, or about 30,000 votes.

In the last couple of weeks, little substantive discussion has been published about the races, although much has been made throughout the Internet of a “disastrous” or “distracting” radio interview Atwater gave. Meanwhile, reporters continued to focus on Gallagher’s championing of decriminalization, legalization and taxation of marijuana for education purposes.

With bigger issues at play, here are slightly deeper dissections of the candidates:

The Grand Old Party

The GOP’s two contenders seem to be keeping their heads down.

In the interview, described here in a blog post from The Washington Post, host Russ Cassell tried to get Atwater to answer questions about sex education and evolution. After Atwater, who called into the show, hung up the phone, the conservative Cassell observed, “Folks, I don't want to be brutal, I don't want to be mean. What you have just heard is an example of a person running for public office on name recognition only, who is clueless."

But as the widow of Republican strategist/dirty tricks czar Lee Atwater, her name still carries weight.

A former teacher who worked in Washington, D.C., in a variety of levels from presidential appointee to federal Department of Education employee, Atwater returned to South Carolina a few years ago and reentered the special education classroom.

Her famous surname has brought with it other controversy, as opponents have pointed out that a large portion of donations to her campaign have come from out of state. And her resume would seem tailor-made to rankle her base: she was a federal bureaucrat in an agency many have advocated doing away with.

Her top three planks include “safer” schools, increased technology and less federal intervention in the classroom.

Spearman also did not respond for comment. Nevertheless, she is being hailed by many corners as the most complete candidate as a former teacher, school administrator, state Education official, state House member who switched parties while in office and statewide advocate.

For the past nine years, Spearman has led the South Carolina Association of School Administrators, a professional organization of more than 3,600 principals, superintendents, and school leaders in the state.

Spearman has called for an overhauling of the state’s public school education system, taking it away from a style more suited for the state’s agrarian and manufacturing past to focusing more on technology-rich jobs of the future.

Like Atwater, Spearman wants more money invested in technology. Her top three planks include safe schools with an emphasis on combating bullying, giving more education “options” to families and holding schools to “local” standards (as opposed to national “Common Core” standards).

A campaign worker confirmed that Spearman was anti-Common Core and wanted parents to be given more “choice” in where their kids attend school. Spearman did not call for comment to further elucidate her position on “options,” including vouchers, tax credits or the like.

The Democrats

As longtime Florence teacher Sheila Gallagher, former president of The South Carolina Education Association, has coached just about every kind of sports team her school has offered, she’s not new to competition.

She wants to increase teacher pay to attract the “best and the brightest,” increase parental involvement and give the STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Math] curriculum two more letters -- an “A” and an “S.”

In short, Gallagher said in a Thursday interview that she wants to return to the Aristotelian concept of educating the “whole child:” science, technology, engineering and math for the brain as well as “S” for sports to train the body and “A” for arts to enrich the soul.

Gallagher said by adjusting the curriculum statewide, families wouldn’t feel the need to look across county and private/public lines for the best educational fit for their offspring.

Gallagher doubled-down on her marijuana plank, saying that too many kids have become lost adults because of possession charges, unable to find a job because of a lingering criminal record.

Thompson, a former dean at S.C. State who grew up in inner-city public housing projects in Chicago, echoed the call for higher teacher pay in a Thursday interview.

Like Gallagher, Thompson said he would change the focus of the state’s curriculum to not only serve the high-achieving kids headed for elite colleges, but those near the bottom of the attainment curve headed toward jobs in the trades.

Thompson said it was critical to address the educational needs of students “trapped” in the middle by giving them a series of introductions to different experiences so they better find their best fit in the world. 

But who’s counting?

If history is a guide for the Tuesday’s elections, runoff turnout will be much less than the already low turnout (16 percent) from the June 10 primary elections. If runoff turnout drops 15 percent as it did in the 2010 gubernatorial runoff, only 13 percent of the state’s registered voters -- about one in eight -- will pick the two candidates who will face off in November. Many expect runoff turnout to be much less, which could favor upstart candidates.

And that could bolster the argument to make the office an appointed one, according to several observers and sources. But Thompson argued there was no need to lose the office’s “political independence.”

Debbie Elmore, spokesman for the S.C. School Boards Association, said there was no data that showed an independent versus appointed superintendent style had more or less efficacy, as nearly every state had their own wrinkle.

Bill Davis is senior editor at Statehouse Report.  He can be reached at:  billdavis@statehousereport.com.

With the state Senate filibustering away the state’s best shot at ethics reform in 20 years, look for ethics to become a bigger and bigger topic in the November elections. Politics was the culprit in delaying reform as many seemed to say they wanted tougher bills but, as some pointed out, that could also be viewed as a pretty convenient way of doing nothing ... again.   

In recent years, Glenn McConnell has complained the state’s budgeting style has created a “rollercoaster” effect in state government. One year, it’s up, the next year, it’s down.

Now, McConnell has played a part in adding to the amusement rides in the Senate. Last year, Lt. Gov. Ken Ard stepped down in the face of a host of campaign finance irregularities.  At the time, McConnell, then a state senator from Charleston, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and served as president pro tem of that chamber. But with Ard gone, he stepped up and took over the unfinished portion of Ard’s tenure in office.

This year, McConnell was named the new president of the College of Charleston and said he would step down to remove any chance of conflict as he may preside over a funding bill for the school. That started the spinning of seats in the Senate’s “tea cup” ride.

State Sen. John Courson, the Columbia Republican who became president pro tem when McConnell became lieutenant governor, didn’t want to move to the lieutenant governor’s chair, so he stepped down.  After a week or so of flux, McConnell fully resigned, and a Democrat, Yancey McGill of Kingstree, took the chair.

Then this week, while Courson was preparing to remount his seat atop the Senate, Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman of Florence put together a big enough coalition to topple Courson.  One junior senator complained it was an orchestrated hit on Courson, creating the moral equivalent of a “shooting gallery” where ducks aren’t the only things that get shot down.

So, the Senate has a rollercoaster, a spinning teacup ride and a shooting gallery. And some say Leatherman, who already controls the state’s purse strings, might as well have a throne.

The organization says its new, Expecting Better: A State-by-State Analysis of Laws That Help New Parents, is the most comprehensive analysis to date of state laws and regulations governing paid leave and workplace rights for new parents in the United States. South Carolina earned a grade of “F,” joining 16 other states that do not provide any support or job protection to new parents beyond what federal law provides. Full report.

“New mothers and fathers should not have to experience financial hardship at what should be one of the happiest times of their lives,” said National Partnership President Debra L. Ness. “Yet tens of millions of expecting and new parents struggle because our nation fails to provide paid leave and other basic workplace protections.  We need national family friendly workplace standards now."

While incumbents generally have an advantage in reelection bids, S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley has something else -- an extra credible opponent who is running as an independent. He also happens to be Republican. She’s also got the same Democratic challenger who narrowly missed beating her in 2010 when the tea party that lifted her to power was much stronger.

“We plan to make history,” Greenville lawyer, former judge and gubernatorial candidate Tom Ervin told us this week. “We have a plan to win this race and have every confidence that once people in South Carolina hear our message for change and reform that voters will respond and choose somebody who is not a career politician like Governor Haley and Senator [Vincent] Sheheen.”

Two words highlight how Ervin may be a real problem for Haley: Ross Perot.

Back in 1992, the Texas businessman mounted an independent campaign for president that some argue put Democrat Bill Clinton in the White House. While Perot won no electoral votes, he garnered 18.9 percent of the national vote to Clinton’s 43 percent and incumbent George H.W. Bush’s 37.5 percent.

Could there be a Perot effect in South Carolina where the winner needs the most votes, not a majority? 

Let’s look at polling, albeit imperfect as more people use cell phones as their only phone. Because there’s no “cell phonebook,” pollsters have an increasingly tougher time reaching samples of the electorate that reflect what’s happening. (Just look to the Virginia primary for U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor where pollsters missed the victory of a challenger by double digits.)

A May Palmetto Poll by Clemson of Republican primary voters showed 80 percent believed Haley was doing a good or excellent job. While not unexpected, the numbers also reflected 20 percent of Republican primary voters -- Haley’s base -- didn’t think she was doing a good job. The April Winthrop Poll of all registered voters showed Haley had a 49.3 percent approval rating, compared to a 39.6 percent disapproval rating with 10.2 percent saying they didn’t know how Haley was handling her job or they didn’t answer the question.

Some internal candidate polling reportedly shows the race neck-and-neck. A memo obtained by Statehouse Report highlighted Haley’s weaknesses as the response to a data breach that resulted in identity theft for virtually every South Carolinian as well as crises involving a tuberculosis outbreak and dealing with winter storms. 

In 2010, 1.3 million people voted in the S.C. governor’s race. Haley got 690,525 votes (51.4 percent) to Sheheen’s 630,534 votes (46.9 percent). Third-party candidate Morgan Bruce Reeves and write-in candidates garnered the remaining 1.7 percent of votes.  

In 2014, Haley and Sheheen will again face Reeves as well as Libertarian Steve French and Ervin.

So let’s do some math. If you assume that French, Reeves and write-ins will get about the same as in 2010, Ervin can have a real impact if he takes just 5 percent of voters away from Haley. In 2010, for example, that would have been slightly more than 65,000 voters, which would have made Sheheen the lead vote-getter and governor.

“What people are responding to is that I’m independent,” Ervin said. “As I travel the state, I’m hearing more and more frustration with the status quo politicians and particularly with the political parties.”

Bottom line: Ervin, who turned in more than twice the number of petition names needed to get on the ballot, has a compelling message. He says he’s in the race to win. But if history is any guide, the real battle will be between the Democratic and Republican standard bearers. 

So watch out for a new Perot effect in November. If frustrated voters, particularly those in the GOP-rich Upstate where Ervin makes his home -- see him as a real alternative because they’re mad with Haley and they can’t hold their nose to vote for Sheheen, Ervin may undermine Haley’s re-election bid. The big fly in the ointment: All of those new jobs in the state since Haley became governor.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.  He can be reached at:  brack@statehousereport.com.

• 6/13:  Do something so no more school shootings
• 6/6: S.C. drama good enough for Hollywood
• 5/30: D is for dysfunctional
  
• MORE BRACK:  See our archives

By ELLIOTT BRACK
Republished by permission

JUNE 20, 2014 -- Being fair can cause confusion.

Being fair can cost us in understanding.

In effect, being fair can cause problems.

We suspect that being fair is a universal consideration in many cultures. It is certainly hammered into young American children from their birth.

"No, Johnny, let your sister play with the toy for a while by herself."

"She went the first time, now it's your turn to start."

"Well, if we're going to hear from Sam, let's hear from John, who has different views."

Fairness has even been written into rules and regulations: i.e., the ill-fated "Fairness Doctrine" from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Though no longer one of its precepts, it came about because the FCC awarded broadcast channels, and wanted to make sure that no one political view was promulgated by the government. Why it still is not in effect baffles many of us.

So, with this background of fairness, what has arisen particularly in the media (out of the Fairness Doctrine in recent years) is the understanding that if you do a story on one viewpoint, in all fairness it's reasonable to check with the "other side" and get their views on controversial subjects. After all, you want to do your own due diligence, and make sure you are telling both sides. Some call this "balanced reporting."

But look at what this thinking does.

It means that you might have 97 percent of the climate scientists in the world who believe (as we understand) that the world is speedily warming up, and that this is a dangerous move caused by mankind. But then you have three percent of the scientists who hold the opposite view. Who knows which is right? The three percent might be right, for every 97-3 split cannot always come down on the 97 side, can it?

So, the story shows both views in its presentation. But as the writer is trying to be fair, perhaps the 97 percent and the three percent of scientists each get a 50-50 split in the space their arguments are presented. (That's fair, isn't it?)

So what has happened? The reader is presented with a "balanced" story, but gets a fairly imbalanced picture. The reader gets the facts, as presented on both sides, and it is not a 97-3 view, but a 50-50 view. So the reader may well be befuddled as to the viability of this particular story. Confusion reigns, even in the face that 97 percent of those who study this question have no doubt about it. Ipso-facto: only 50 percent of the readers now have no doubt about it.

The upshot is that the world gets a very unbalanced view of the subject.

You can extend similar media-driven stories to topics like gun control, the effects of smoking (how long did that story take to finally jell?), and today's continuing story of the effects of the Tea Party on Republican politics. Balanced views can create unbalanced outcomes.

Fairness can cause confusion.

Maybe we need to go back to the days when it was easy to determine the politics of the media. Remember, there was a time when there was a Rochester Republican newspaper, and even today there is a Tallahassee Democrat newspaper. Go one more: today we have a Fox News Channel, which many view as at least conservative, if not Republican. And others view The New York Times as heavily Democratic.

Perhaps that's not all bad.

But the main thrust: Being fair has led, in public matters, to confusion and misunderstanding.

Veteran Georgia journalist Elliott Brack is editor and publisher of GwinnettForum, a sister publication.

Carpenter. A huge salute to retired Marine Cpl. Kyle Carpenter, Palmetto State winner of the Medal of Honor for heroism.