Common Cause Blog

Black Voters in New Orleans

Kirk Clay, who works with us on voting rights issues, passed along this excellent piece on voting in New Orleans. It's written by Lance Hill, an historian and author of "Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement", University of North Carolina Press and the executive director of the non-profit Southern Institute for Education and Research at Tulane University:

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

Disinformation

Disinformation, an alternative news and media website, has listed Common Cause, with a brief explanation of who we are and what we do, under their Human Rights category. We caught their attention last week with our report on Astroturf front groups, "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing," which details how telecom corporations are trying to trick the public into believing that they have widespread grassroots support for their damaging proposals.

It's nice to see that the alternative media is at least sticking up for the rights of internet users; Disinformation is one of the web's largest such outlets, so we can only hope that our report and our cause will reach many more people because of their attention. Let us know in the Comments section if you see our name or our report elsewhere on the web and in the media, and help us spread the word about our campaign to keep the internet fair and open.

Delay

In the WaPo and everywhere else, the news is this:

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.

Early in his career in the House, Delay, an exterminator, persuaded the then-Democratic leadership to fumigate the roach-ridden Longworth House Office Building. Then he helped lead the 1994 fumigation of Dems from the House. Now, through his own hubris and with a push from prosecutors, he's gone.

But Delay is not the whole problem. He was an architect, a leader of the corrupt way business is done in Washington. Yet, Delay did not do this himself. The Senate's recent failure to enact tough ethics and lobbying rules is just the latest indication that the rest of Congress has not learned from the Abramoff-Delay scandal. Too many Members of Congress are under the delusion that those men were an aberration.

Ethics Committeee Stalled Again

I am shocked! Shocked!

Washington Post editorial from Saturday:

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?

Update on the Dukester

Former California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham sentenced to 8 years and 4 months in prison for accepting bribes.

Check out the story from AP

John Boehner

New Republican Majority Leader.

State of the Union

We will be posting our comments on the President's speech, but go ahead with your own anytime.