While Congress plays games, Americans suffer vote fraud

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Feb 3, 1997 | by Paul Weyrich

It was 30 years ago, Jan. 5, 1967, when this naive, eager 24-year-old set foot inside what now is the Dirksen Building (Sen. Everrett Dirksen was alive then) to begin to work in the US. Senate. What an education that was. Within the first month I learned something that utterly shocked me. The senator for whom I worked introduced a bill with which he didn't agree. When I questioned this, he said he did so to help a constituent. I said, in my ignorance, "But what if the bill gets passed?" Gordon Allott smiled at my question and said reassuringly, "I have a deal with Scoop [Jackson, Washington Democrat and chairman of the Senate Interior Committee] that the bill will never see the light of day." And this, by the way, was done by one of the most honest men ever to have served in the Senate.

Such began my insight into the long-playing game of Washington deception. The trick is to look like you are doing one thing while doing the opposite. These games never cease. The Senate recently seated Mary Landrieu of Louisiana "without prejudice," meaning that if it turns out there was voter fraud m the recent Senate election there, theoretically the seat could be vacated and a new election held.

I say theoretically because, although key senators are telling Landrieu's opponent, Woody Jenkins, otherwise, the fact is the way this is being orchestrated means the race is over. Even if the Senate Rules Committee concluded that fraud in the election turned the results (and more evidence is coming in every day), all the Democrats would have to do is filibuster and Landrieu would keep her seat. And they would, of course. This is all a cozy little deal worked out between the majority and the minority in the Senate.

The fact is, if the Republican majority had been serious about the problems in Louisiana, they would not have allowed Landrieu to be seated. That is what the Democrats did to Louis Wyman of New Hampshire, the certified winner of the Senate race in that state in 1974. The Democrats claimed voter irregularities. There was no evidence of the sort that has turned up in Louisiana. In any case, the majority in 1975 refused to seat Wyman. Gov. Meldrim Thomson then appointed just-retired Sen. Norris Cotton to the Senate seat to serve in the interim and a new election-was held. In that election, the certified winner, Wyman, was defeated by the loser of the general election in 1974, John Durkin.

This took place before Vice President Nelson Rockefeller maneuvered to change the Senate rules. In those days, Republicans could have mounted a filibuster with just 34 votes. They had 38 senators that year. Democrats didn't take that chance. They did not seat certified-winner Wyman conditionally.

The fact is that there is evidence enough right now to deprive Landrieu of that Senate seat. If only the Republican majority had the stomach for confrontation, this is exactly what they would have done. Instead, we will go on with the charade of an investigation. From their point of view, the Republicans will do Jenkins the favor of validating his claims and lay the blame on the Democrats for filibustering a move for a new election.

Well, Republicans, you could have done the nation a favor. You could have preserved the integrity of our electoral system. You could, for once, have stood up and behaved as if you were the majority. Landrieu should not have been sworn in as a senator in the 105th Congress. This would have been the perfect occasion to stop playing games and to start leveling with the American people.