Guest Commentary
By Lance Hill
April 18, 2006
Feel free to reproduce
I am surprised at how many people responding to my column earlier this week thought the early voter system for the New Orleans Mayor's election was successful in helping displaced black voters. They were amazed to hear that only 4% of the black registered voters made it to the eleven polls set up around the state to accommodate voters still in exile. I understand their surprise. The main story on the vote outcome was in the New Orleans Times-Picayune's story on April 16 which reported the total number of votes cast in early voting but not in comparison to the total number of registered voters, especially those displaced. What was reported under the subheading "Large Black Turnout," was Louisiana Secretary of State Al Ater's estimate that 70% of the 10,585 people who cast ballots were black, which translates into 7,409 black votes. That sounds like a lot of votes unless you include what the Times-Picayune omitted: that these were 7,409 voters of out a total of 188,166 eligible black registered voters. Put in this context, the real story was that 96% of the eligible black voters did not show up to the satellite polls and will have to vote absentee or in person. ... read more

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), a primary architect of the Republican majority who became one of the most powerful and feared leaders in Washington, said this morning that he will give up his seat rather than face a reelection fight that appears increasingly unwinnable.

Nap Time for Ethics
House panel does no business -- as usual.
Saturday, April 1, 2006; A16

REP. ROBERT W. NEY (R-Ohio) has been implicated in accepting lavish trips and other gifts from Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping the lobbyist's clients. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has been caught up in the Abramoff net as well; yesterday his former deputy chief of staff pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges arising from his dealings with Mr. Abramoff. On the Democratic side, a former aide to Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) has pleaded guilty to helping Mr. Jefferson try to obtain bribes for brokering telecommunications deals in Africa. And that's not even the whole roster of alleged ethical improprieties. Busy times for the House ethics committee, right?

If you answered yes, you don't know this ethics committee. Fifteen months into the 109th Congress, the panel managed on Thursday to have its first real meeting of the Congress. Members gathered behind closed doors for six hours and . . . drumroll . . . agreed to continue a previously launched investigation of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) for distributing an intercepted cellphone call between House leaders in 1996. That's all.

This would be the same ethics committee whose chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), offered almost a year ago to name an investigative subcommittee to "review various allegations concerning travel and other actions by Mr. DeLay." If anything, the developments in the months since have only added to the argument for investigating Mr. DeLay and others. The ethics committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W. Va.), offered this understatement after the meeting: "This result falls far short of the committee's obligations in the current circumstances."

Whatever the reason for the stalemate, the panel's inactivity in the face of scandal is itself scandalous. Certainly, it's important that the ethics committee not take actions that interfere with the criminal investigations and prosecutions that have been sprouting from the Abramoff affair. But that doesn't mean it needs to be entirely inert, either. It's important that the committee not go into hibernation while prosecutors finish their work. Prosecutors and the ethics panel have separate roles, with the ethics committee responsible for monitoring potential rule violations that would not come close to being a criminal offense. In fact, there's a useful precedent that shows how both entities can do their work simultaneously: the ethics panel's investigation into former representative Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) at the same time that Mr. Shuster was the subject of a criminal probe.

The Senate just rejected a proposal for an independent congressional office to investigate complaints against members. The argument was that there was no evidence the Senate ethics committee itself wasn't up to the job. What, exactly, will the House ethics committee be able to say for itself when the issue comes up in that body?

A federal judge barred a Pennsylvania school district yesterday from mentioning "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their "breathtaking inanity" in trying to inject religion into science classes.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President Bush, did not confine his opinion to the missteps of a local school board. Instead he explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.