[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6479-S6489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      LOUISIANA CONTESTED ELECTION

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on April 17 the Committee on Rules and 
Administration voted, along party lines, to conduct an investigation 
into allegations that fraud, irregularities, and other errors affected 
the outcome of the 1996 election for United States Senator from 
Louisiana. The vote was taken after a very thorough discussion. 
Periodically I have reported to the Senate with floor statements; today 
is my third.
  On May 8, I reported that the committee was about to embark on a 
bipartisan investigation, as a result of efforts by both the majority 
and minority to agree to a ``Investigative Protocol'' regarding the 
joint conduct of the investigation. From the inception, I have believed 
a joint investigation could better serve the Senate.
  On May 23, I provided a second status report to the Senate on the 
following: on efforts to secure the detail of FBI agents to the 
Committee, on assurances of cooperation by Louisiana officials, and on 
my agreement with Senator Ford, the ranking member on the Committee, on 
the issuance of over 130 subpoenas.
  Last evening, Senator Ford announced that the ``Rules Committee 
Democrats will withdraw from the investigation of illegal election 
activities in the contested Louisiana Senate election''. Further, he 
asserted that the ``investigation was over budget, it's exceed the time 
frame agreed to, and none of Mr. Jenkin's (sic) claims have been 
substantiated by any credible witness.''
  Since last Friday, Senator Ford and I had been working to resolve 
differences and develop a written outline of the work we jointly could 
agree on to complete our investigation. I had good reason to believe we 
had made progress, but I learned at approximately 6 p.m. yesterday that 
the minority had decided to terminate their participation.

[[Page S6480]]

              A Brief History of the Investigation To Date

  On April 17, 1997, when the Committee on Rules and Administration 
authorized me, ``in consultation with the ranking member'', to conduct 
an investigation into the 1996 Senate election in Louisiana (exhibit 
1), I stated that I believed that a preliminary inquiry could be 
completed in approximately 45 days. Today is June 26, some 70 days 
later. This passage of time included: 20 days to first develop the 
Investigative Protocol required by the minority before we proceeded to 
finalizing contracts with our respective outside counsel; 53 days to 
secure from the Department of Justice the detail of FBI agents to the 
Committee.
  As I stated at the April 17 hearing, it was my hope that this 
investigation could be conducted in a bipartisan manner, with the use 
of experienced investigative attorneys to direct the investigation, and 
with the assistance of experienced agents from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
  The majority proposed to retain the law firm of McGuire, Woods, 
Battle & Boothe as their outside counsel. Senator Ford proposed to 
retain the law firm of Perkins Coie. Under federal law, such 
consultants can only be hired pursuant to a joint agreement between the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee.
  Senator Ford further conditioned the contracting of these firms on 
first reaching a joint Investigative Protocol. Among other matters this 
document had to detail the rights of the minority, the direction of the 
investigation, and the confidentiality of all aspects of the 
investigation. On April 21, our respective designated outside counsel 
began a long series of negotiations leading up to this Protocol, which 
counsel signed on May 1. The Protocol was approved not only by Senator 
Ford and his counsel, but also by the minority members of the Rules 
Committee. The contracts retaining the two law firms were signed on May 
7. This process in total consumed 20 days, during which no 
investigation could take place. Copies of my letter to Senator Ford on 
this issue, the Investigative Protocol, and the letters of retainer are 
attached (exhibits 2-5).
  We also agreed upon retaining the services of the General Accounting 
Office to assist in review of election documents. Two specialists, one 
a Certified Public Accountant, were detailed to the Committee on May 
30, and are reviewing and assessing many of the thousands of election 
documents that were subpoenaed to assess the allegations of ``phantom 
votes''. That work is on going.
  As the Investigative Protocol was being developed, committee staff 
had begun discussions with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 
Department of Justice to detail experienced FBI agents to the 
Committee. Initially, Senator Ford indicated that members of the 
minority had some concern in using FBI investigators. Accordingly, on 
my own initiative, I wrote the Attorney General on May 9 requesting the 
detailees (exhibit 6). After additional conversations with Senator 
Ford, on May 14 he then joined me in formalizing a Committee request 
for the use of FBI agents (exhibit 7).
  Thereafter, more negotiations ensued with the Department and Bureau, 
including my personal consultation with Director Freeh, to have the 
request approved by Attorney General Reno. Her final approval, given by 
her Deputy, occurred on May. But, the Department and Bureau stated that 
they could only provide two agents rather than the four we requested.
  These two agents were not actually detailed to the Committee until 
June 9. By this time, 53 days had passed since the Committee hearing on 
April 17.
  In addition, the Department still has not formally approved a 
Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau, Department, and the 
majority and minority sides of the committee. Our staffs submitted a 
draft several weeks ago to the Department of Justice. This document, 
which is required under normal Committee procedures, has not been 
formally approved by the Department. A copy of the draft memorandum is 
attached (exhibit 8).
  As regards timing, the central fact is that not until June 9 could 
the Committee get in place, in Louisiana, the agents to begin the field 
investigation. Petitioner Jenkins delivered files and tapes in response 
to a Committee subpoena and the FBI agents promptly began their review. 
Since this field investigation began in Louisiana only 17 days ago, we 
have had inadequate time to complete a preliminary investigation for 
the Committee. Indeed, we have not even begun the investigation into 
fraudulent registration which was one of the three areas that the 
Democratic counsel specifically recommended should be investigated. But 
progress is being made in collecting evidence and assessing 
Petitioner's allegations.
  Speaking for myself, I am of the opinion this joint investigation 
should continue until the full Committee, not just the minority 
members, have had the opportunity to evaluate the work done to date. 
The Committee, I believe, has this obligation to the Senate.


                     The Investigative Expenditures

  At the time the investigation was authorized by the Committee, I 
believed that outside counsel could complete this preliminary 
investigation with an expenditure for outside counsel capped at 
$100,000 for the majority and an equal amount for the minority. This 
estimate assumed that the FBI and GAO would provide the Committee a 
sufficient number of detailees in a timely manner.
  At this point the majority outside counsel is working within the 
limit authorized by contract, and the full expenditure limit of 
$100,000 for services has not been reached. In addition to lawyers, 
when the Bureau concluded it could only provide two FBI detailees, the 
Committee had to hire two retired FBI agents. This was an additional 
expense, but their costs are being met within the majority's share of 
the Committee's resources.
  A large percentage of our legal expenses to date were incurred to 
keep this as a joint investigation. For example, these expenses 
included prolonged negotiations developing the protocol, extensive 
negotiation and meetings to agree on the issuance of over 100 
subpoenas, the acquisition and briefing of FBI agents, and the 
designation of investigative priorities, and other related matters. To 
provide for a joint investigation, the majority has tried in an every 
way to meet minority requests (exhibit 9).


                        status of investigation

  Until the full Committee meets, I will defer any comment on the 
evidence collected to date from witness interviews involving 
allegations of fraud.
  With regards to the work done by our GAO detailed auditors have been 
assessing a portion of the Petitioner's categories of ``phantom 
votes''. While this work is not complete, the auditors have provided 
the Committee with interim data indicating that there were very few 
``phantom votes'' in the categories and precincts examined to date.
  Now I turn to issues relating to the compliance, or non-compliance of 
the laws providing safeguards to ensure the integrity of the Louisiana 
election process. The investigation, thus far, has clearly revealed 
that the safeguards required under Louisiana law--designed to ensure an 
election free from fraud--were breached, broken, in many instances 
during the 1996 election. Crucial election records were never sealed 
and remained exposed to possible tampering in violation of state law. 
Other election records were destroyed. Documents were commingled within 
a single office instead of being forwarded to separate offices on 
election night as required by law, completely frustrating a safeguard 
designed to prevent fraudulent alteration of the records. In addition, 
voting machines were opened after the election, ahead of schedule and 
outside the presence of witnesses, again clearly in violation of state 
law. A detailed memorandum prepared by outside counsel is attached as 
exhibit 10.
  In conclusion, this investigation, thus far, has established that in 
many instances election officials, entrusted with following the law, 
did not do so. Documents, statements of admission, and testimony taken 
by the Committee's field investigators establish these facts.
  This non-compliance with these legal safeguards, particularly in 
Orleans Parish, provided the opportunity for persons to commit fraud. 
It is the responsibility of the Committee to determine from the 
evidence whether such fraud existed and whether it affected the outcome 
of the 1996 election.

[[Page S6481]]

  Given the importance of this matter to the United States Senate, it 
is my intent to work with Senator Ford to schedule a full Committee 
meeting as promptly as possible upon the return of the Senate after 
recess.
  I ask unanimous consent that the exhibits to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the exhibits were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Exhibit 1 As passed by the Committee.


         committee on rules and administration committee motion

       Wheras, the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 
     5 provides that the Senate is ``the Judge of the Elections, 
     Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members . . .'';
       Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has reviewed this 
     Constitutional provision on several occasions and has held: 
     ``[The Senate] is the judge of elections, returns and 
     qualifications of its members. . . . It is fully empowered, 
     and may determine such matters without the aid of the House 
     of Representatives or the Executive or Judicial Department.'' 
     [Reed et al. v. The County Comm'rs of Delaware County, Penn., 
     277 U.S. 376, 388 (1928)]; and
       Whereas, in the course of Senate debate, it has been 
     stated: ``The Constitution vested in this body not only the 
     power but the duty to judge, when there is a challenged 
     election result involving the office of U.S. Senator.'' 
     [Congressional Record Vol. 121, Part 1, p. 440].
       Therefore, the Committee on Rules and Administration, 
     having been given jurisdiction over ``contested elections'' 
     under Rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, authorized 
     the Chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority 
     member, to direct and conduct an Investigation of such scope 
     as deemed necessary by the Chairman, into illegal or improper 
     activities to determine the existence or absence of a body of 
     fact that would justify the Senate in making the 
     determination that fraud, irregularities or other errors, in 
     the aggregate, affected the outcome of the election for 
     United States Senator in the state of Louisiana in 1996.
       This Committee Motion will operate in conjunction with and 
     concurrent to the Standing Rules of the Senate. In addition, 
     the following Rules of Procedure are applicable, as a 
     supplement to the Committee Rules of Procedure:
       A. Full Committee subpoenas: The chairman, with the 
     approval of the ranking minority member of the Committee, is 
     authorized to subpoena the attendance of witnesses or the 
     production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other 
     materials at a hearing or deposition, provided that the 
     chairman may subpoena attendance or production without the 
     approval of the ranking minority member where the chairman or 
     a staff officer designated by him has not received 
     notification from the ranking minority member or a staff 
     officer designated by him of disapproval of the subpoena 
     within 72 hours, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, of being 
     notified of the subpoena. If a subpoena is disapproved by the 
     ranking minority member as provided in this section, the 
     subpoena may be authorized by vote of the members of the 
     Committee. When the Committee or chairman authorizes 
     subpoenas, subpoenas may be issued upon the signature of 
     the chairman or any other member of the Committee 
     designated by the chairman.
       B. Quorum: One member of the Committee shall constitute a 
     quorum for taking sworn or unsworn testimony.
       C. Swearing Witnesses: All witnesses at public or executive 
     hearings who testify to matters of fact shall be sworn. Any 
     Member of the Committee is authorized to administer an oath.
       D. Witness Counsel: Counsel retained by any witness and 
     accompanying such witness shall be permitted to be present 
     during the testimony of such witness at any public or 
     executive hearing or deposition, and to advise such witness 
     while he is testifying, of his legal rights. Provided, 
     however, that in the case of any witness who is an officer or 
     employee of the government, or of a corporation or 
     association, the Committee chairman may rule that 
     representation by counsel from the government, corporation, 
     or association, or by counsel representing other witnesses, 
     creates a conflict of interest, and that the witness may only 
     be represented during deposition by Committee staff or 
     consultant or during testimony before the Committee by 
     personal counsel not from the government, corporation, or 
     association, or by personal counsel not representing other 
     witnesses. This rule shall not be construed to excuse a 
     witness from testifying in the event his counsel is ejected 
     for conducting himself in such a manner so as to prevent, 
     impede, disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the orderly 
     administration of the hearings; nor shall this rule be 
     construed as authorizing counsel to coach the witness or 
     answer for the witness. The failure of any witness to secure 
     counsel shall not excuse such witness from complying with a 
     subpoena or deposition notice.
       E. Full Committee depositions: Depositions may be taken 
     prior to or after a hearing as provided in this section.
       (1) Notices for the taking of depositions shall be 
     authorized and issued by the chairman, with the approval of 
     the ranking minority member of the Committee, provided that 
     the chairman may initiate depositions without the approval of 
     the ranking minority member where the chairman or a staff 
     officer designated by him has not received notification from 
     the ranking minority member or a staff officer designated by 
     him of disapproval of the deposition within 72 hours, 
     excluding Saturdays and Sundays, of being notified of the 
     deposition notice. If a deposition notice is disapproved by 
     the ranking minority member as provided in this subsection, 
     the deposition notice may be authorized by a vote of the 
     members of the Committee. Committee deposition notices shall 
     specify a time and place for examination, and the name of the 
     Committee members(s) or Committee staff member(s) or 
     consultant(s) who will take the deposition. Unless otherwise 
     specified, the deposition shall be in private. The Committee 
     shall not initiate procedures leading to criminal or civil 
     enforcement proceedings for a witness' failure to appear or 
     produce unless the deposition notice was accompanied by a 
     Committee subpoena.
       (2) Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel 
     to advise them of their legal rights, subject to the 
     provisions of Section D.
       (3) Oaths at depositions may be administered by an 
     individual authorized by local law to administer oaths. 
     Questions shall be propounded orally by Committee members(s) 
     or Committee staff or consultant(s). If a witness objects to 
     a question and refuses to testify, the objection shall be 
     noted for the record and the Committee member(s) or Committee 
     staff or consultant(s) may proceed with the remainder of the 
     deposition.
       (4) The Committee shall see that the testimony is 
     transcribed or electronically recorded (which may include 
     audio or audio/video recordings). If it is transcribed, the 
     transcript shall be made available for inspection by the 
     witness or his or her counsel under Committee supervision. 
     The witness shall sign a copy of the transcript and may 
     request changes to it. If the witness fails to sign a copy, 
     the staff shall note that fact on the transcript. The 
     individual administering the oath shall certify on the 
     transcript that the witness was duly sworn in his presence, 
     the transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true 
     record of the testimony, and the transcript shall then be 
     filed with the chief clerk of the Committee. The chairman or 
     a staff officer designated by him may stipulate with the 
     witness to changes in the procedure; deviations from this 
     procedure which do not substantially impair the reliability 
     of the record shall not relieve the witness from his or her 
     obligation to testify truthfully.
       (5) The Chairman and the ranking minority member, acting 
     jointly, or the Committee may authorize Committee staff or 
     consultants to take testimony orally, by sworn statement, or 
     by deposition. In the case of depositions, both the Chairman 
     and ranking minority member shall have the right to designate 
     Committee staff or consultants to ask questions at the 
     deposition. This section shall only be applicable subsequent 
     to approval by the Senate or authority for the Committee to 
     take depositions by Committee staff or consultants.
       F. Interviews and General Inquiry: Committee staff or 
     consultants hired by or detailed to the Committee may conduct 
     interviews of potential witnesses and otherwise obtain 
     information related to this Investigation. The Chairman and 
     the ranking minority member, acting jointly, or the Committee 
     shall determine whether information obtained during this 
     Investigation shall be considered secret or confidential 
     under Rule 29.5 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and not 
     released to any person or entity other than Committee 
     Members, staff or consultants.
       G. Federal, State, and Local authorities:
       1. Referral: When it is determined by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member, or by a majority of the Committee, 
     that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of 
     law may have occurred, the chairman and ranking minority 
     member by letter, or the Committee by resolution, are 
     authorized to report such violation to the proper Federal, 
     State, and/or local authorities. Such letter or report may 
     recite the basis for the determination of reasonable cause. 
     This rule is not authority for release of documents or 
     testimony.
       2. Coordination: The Chairman is encouraged to seek the 
     cooperation and coordination of appropriate federal, state, 
     and local authorities, including law enforcement authorities 
     in the conduct of this Investigation.
       H. Conflict of Rules: To the extent there is conflict 
     between the Rules of Procedure contained herein and the Rules 
     of Procedure of the Committee, the Rules of Procedure 
     contained herein apply, as it relates to the conduct of this 
     Investigation authorized herein.
                                  ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 
           Washington, DC, April 29, 1997.
     Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Wendell: As I announced at our Committee meeting on 
     April 17, I would like to retain the law firm of McGuire 
     Woods Battle & Boothe with Mr. Richard Cullen and Mr. George 
     J. Terwilliger, III, serving as lead counsel, to conduct the 
     initial investigation into the alleged fraudulent and 
     improper activities that may have affected the outcome of the 
     1996 election for United States Senator from Louisiana. It 
     was my intent then, and remains so today, that this 
     investigation be

[[Page S6482]]

     conducted in as fair a manner as possible, with the objective 
     of determining the existence, or absence, of a body of fact 
     that would justify the Senate in making a determination that 
     fraud, irregularities or other errors, in the aggregate, 
     affected the outcome of the election.
       Accordingly, McGuire Woods will designate attorneys with 
     long-term affiliations with both political parties, including 
     Mr. William G. Broaddus, a former Attorney General of 
     Virginia under Governor Chuck Robb, Mr. James W. Dyke, Jr., a 
     former Secretary of Education under Governor Doug Wilder, and 
     Mr. Frank B. Atkinson, former counsel to Governor George 
     Allen. It is my hope that this investigation will be 
     conducted in coordination with a like team of counsel 
     selected by the minority.
       It is now my understanding that, after many hours of 
     meetings over four days, an ``Investigative Protocol'' has 
     been agreed to by both sets of outside counsel as well as by 
     Committee counsel, and that you are to be briefed on this 
     protocol today. I am hopeful that you will agree with me that 
     his protocol will permit a full and fair investigation of the 
     allegations and facts, with complete participation by counsel 
     for the minority.
       This investigation must begin as soon as possible. It does 
     no service to either party to this contest, nor the Senate, 
     to prolong this matter. I reiterate my statement at the 
     hearing that I will agree to your contracting for counsel. 
     Any counsel you deem appropriate will be agree to by me 
     pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 72a(i)(3). Further, I will honor 
     any reasonable requests for subpoenas that you might wish to 
     issue.
       I look forward to your acceptance of the Investigative 
     Protocol and a joint investigation that will collect the 
     facts upon which our Committee may make an informed decision 
     concerning this matter.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Warner,
                                                         Chairman.

                               Exhibit 3


                         investigative protocol

     I. Process for Consultation and Review
       Counsel will agree to consult on an ongoing, regularly-
     scheduled basis on the progress of the investigation, 
     including consultation before significant investigative 
     decisions are made; the majority and minority counsel will 
     participate in regular staff meetings with investigators 
     regarding the agenda and results of the investigation.
       Consultation will include timely evaluation of the 
     evidence, consideration of new lines--or extension of 
     existing lines--of investigation, review of the schedule for 
     interviewing witnesses and taking depositions, and 
     discussion, where necessary, of other issues or investigative 
     leads which promote a more efficient and cooperative 
     investigative effort.
       The majority and minority will work together to achieve 
     agreement on investigative issues and decisions. When 
     agreement cannot be reached after reasonable, good faith 
     efforts, the necessary decision will be made in accordance 
     with the majority view. It is understood, however, that the 
     majority and minority will endeavor in good faith to avoid 
     majority rather than consensus decision-making and that the 
     minority reserves the right to withdraw from further 
     participation under this protocol.
     II. The Scope of the Investigation
       Committee counsel will prepare and conduct an investigation 
     pursuant to Committee resolution as follows:
       Allegations of fraud, in particular vote buying, multiple 
     voting and fraudulent voter registration. These allegations 
     will be investigated as appropriate with attention to areas 
     such as ``mismatched signatures'' and ``phantom voting,'' 
     taking into account also evidence of failure of safeguards 
     against fraud in the administration of the election.
       The initial investigation plan will require that the 
     investigation proceed in the first instance with the 
     collection of all affidavits, notes, memoranda, audiotapes, 
     transcripts and other materials in the possession of the 
     Contestant which were submitted to the Committee on a redated 
     basis but which shall be submitted in their original form to 
     majority and minority counsel on an equal basis, without 
     redaction, deletion or other editing, including the 
     scheduling and conduct of interviews with the investigators 
     hired or used by Contestant and the witnesses whom they 
     interviewed and, as jointly determined pursuant to III 
     (Investigative Plan), other allegations or evidence of error 
     or irregularity.
       The Committee investigation into any and all allegations 
     will be guided and conducted as follows as evidence and 
     testimony is collected or received, or evaluated.
       The objective of the investigative effort will be 
     competent, credible evidence, which evidence tends to show 
     that but for the fraud, error or irregularity, the outcome of 
     the election would have been different or the result of the 
     election cannot be reliably determined.
       The use of standard and generally accepted investigative 
     techniques.
       Careful consideration of Senate precedent and other 
     analogous legal principles established by the law of 
     Louisiana and other states reflected in the Senate precedent.
     III. Investigative Plan
       Counsel will reasonably endeavor to adhere to the 45-day 
     timetable for completing the investigation; the 45-day 
     timetable shall commence after agreement on the terms of the 
     protocol. Counsel will advise the Chairman and Ranking Member 
     if, due to new leads and areas of investigation, additional 
     time is necessary.
       An investigative plan will be proposed by majority counsel, 
     subject to consultation with minority counsel, for the 
     purpose of establishing priorities with respect to witness 
     interviews, obtaining documents, issuing subpoenas, and other 
     investigative requirements.
       Every effort will be made to agree on an initial 
     investigative plan. As part of the initial investigation, 
     majority and minority counsel agree that interviews may 
     proceed with the parties to the contest and/or their agents, 
     employees and volunteers, and witnesses with whom they had 
     contact in preparing the Petition and response, within 10 
     days of the commencement of the investigation. In the event 
     of any unresolved differences on other aspects of the conduct 
     of the investigation, the necessary decision will be made in 
     accordance with the majority view.
       The majority counsel will promptly provide a draft of 
     recommendations at the conclusion of the investigation. The 
     minority counsel will promptly provide suggested amendments, 
     corrections or deletions. If respective counsel cannot agree 
     on one final report, minority counsel may submit a supplement 
     or separate report.
       A written recommendation will be provided to the Chairman 
     and Ranking Member within 5 days after the conclusion of the 
     investigative period.
     IV. Investigative Teams
       Different areas of investigation will be assigned to teams 
     which include representatives from the majority and minority 
     counsel.
       As part of the consultation process, the investigative 
     teams will regularly advise the majority and minority counsel 
     as a whole on the progress of their investigations.
       Investigators will identify themselves as committee 
     investigators only. A standard introductory statement to be 
     used by investigators when approaching witnesses for the 
     first time will be developed and agreed upon by majority and 
     minority counsel.
       Majority and minority counsel will jointly develop and 
     participate in a briefing of investigators as to the purpose, 
     scope, planning, and conduct of the investigation.
       Majority and minority counsel will consult as to what 
     instructions are to be given to investigators before 
     conducting witness interviews. Majority and minority counsel 
     will both participate in the briefing of investigators in 
     advance of a particular witness interview, though either side 
     may decline participation at its option.
     V. Investigative Procedures
       1. Subpoenas
       Counsel shall seek to avoid unreasonable objection on the 
     issuance of subpoenas.
       The request of a witness for confidential treatment of his 
     or her identity under Section V(3) is not a reasonable basis 
     for objection to any subpoena requests.
       Majority and minority counsel will consult on the drafting 
     and issuance of all subpoenas consistent with the need to 
     protect the identities of confidential sources of information 
     as described below.
       2. Depositions
       The same considerations of comity and cooperation which 
     apply to the issuance of subpoenas, as described immediately 
     above, will apply to the noticing of depositions.
       Majority and minority counsel will consult on the issuances 
     of notices of depositions; in any event, at least one member 
     of the majority and one member of the minority counsel staff 
     will attend and participate in each deposition. In the event 
     that the Senate grants counsel staff deposition authority, 
     such depositions will be conducted on the same terms.
       3. Witness Interviews
       Investigators may be requested by the majority or minority 
     counsel to conduct interviews, and the assignments will be 
     considered and made on a consultative basis to assure the 
     avoidance of conflicts and undue burden in the use of 
     available resources. At the request of the majority or 
     minority counsel, counsel may assist in the conduct of the 
     interview or be present, or the majority or minority may 
     request to conduct the interviews through counsel, but it is 
     understood that occasions may arise where one side or the 
     other may wish to conduct the interview without the other in 
     attendance. Majority counsel has the responsibility to 
     reasonably resolve any conflicting requests. Agents will be 
     properly instructed as set out below.
       Subject to the provisions of Section VI, witnesses may 
     request an interview to be conducted with only the majority 
     or minority counsel present, but in this instance and in any 
     other instance where a witness requests that his or her 
     identity be withheld from either the majority or minority, 
     the counsel from whom the identity may be withheld may 
     request the identity and the opportunity to interview the 
     witness where the credibility of the witness is relevant to 
     the evidentiary weight of the testimony.
       No follow-up interviews of previously interviewed 
     witnesses, except by investigators, shall be conducted 
     without consultation between majority and minority counsel 
     about the appropriate timing for such follow-up.

[[Page S6483]]

       Investigators will be instructed to make all reasonable 
     efforts to provide written reports of all witness interviews 
     to majority and minority counsel within 24 hours of the 
     interview. Any oral communications regarding investigative 
     findings or significant investigative issues shall be 
     promptly reported and transmitted to counsel to both the 
     majority and minority.
     VI. Policy Regarding Confidential Sources of Information
       Although a witness seeking confidentiality will be 
     encouraged not to place any restrictions on the disclosure of 
     his or her identity, the decision to keep the witness' 
     identity confidential will be left to the witness; however, 
     the witness will be informed that his or her identity will be 
     revealed to the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Committee 
     upon request. There shall be a presumption that no 
     confidentiality shall be extended to a party to the contest 
     or to any agent, employee or volunteer of a party to the 
     contest; exceptions may be granted by agreement of majority 
     and minority counsel for good cause shown or upon agreement 
     of the Chairman and Ranking Member or at the direction of the 
     Committee.
       Information obtained from a confidential source will be 
     provided to the other counsel through the prompt exchange of 
     written reports; these reports will describe the source's 
     information, and provide the basis for and an assessment of 
     the reliability of the source and his or her information. 
     Where the substance of the information provided reveals the 
     identity of the source, the content of the written reports 
     will be redacted to protect the confidentiality of the 
     source's identity.
       In the event that there are interviews of confidential 
     sources, each counsel will maintain a list of those sources; 
     where disclosure of a confidential source is necessary, the 
     identity of the confidential source will only be disclosed to 
     the Chairman and Ranking Member.
     VII. Evidence Integrity
       The parties, their agents or other persons with an interest 
     in the investigation shall be advised against any contact or 
     communication with witnesses on the substance, timing or on 
     other material matters relating to the provision of testimony 
     or interviews, or to the collection of evidence. This advice 
     will include a request that the parties in particular commit 
     to cooperation with this investigation and encourage those in 
     their employ, their counsel and supporters to extend this 
     same cooperation. The purpose of this advisory and request 
     for commitment shall be to protect the integrity of the 
     testimony and evidence and the majority and minority shall 
     consider and implement as appropriate other means to assure 
     the fulfillment of this purpose as the investigation 
     proceeds.
     VII. Hearings/Quorum
       Hearings at which sworn testimony is taken will be 
     conducted with proper notice under Committee rules with a 
     view toward and expectation of both majority and minority 
     member attendance. Such notice will normally be three days. 
     All hearings shall be scheduled in good faith to accommodate 
     reasonable opportunities of majority and minority member 
     attendance.
     IX. Document Repository
       The originals of all subpoenaed documents or other 
     documents received in connection with the investigation will 
     be kept and maintained under safeguarded conditions on the 
     premises of the Senate Rules Committee as required by the 
     rules of the Senate. Majority and minority counsel will have 
     access to all original documents.
       Majority and minority counsel will jointly maintain copies 
     of all subpoenaed documents in a central document repository; 
     a documents custodian will be appointed to maintain and 
     catalog all documents obtained during the course of the 
     investigation; the documents room will be kept under lock and 
     key at all times but will be available to all counsel on an 
     equal basis.
       Minority counsel may create and maintain a separate 
     document storage facility for the keeping of duplicate 
     documents.
     X. Press Policy
       Majority and minority counsel will decline comment to the 
     press, except as agreed in extraordinary circumstances to 
     address errors in public reporting that may compromise the 
     integrity of the investigation or perceptions of its 
     integrity of course. Otherwise, all press inquiries will be 
     referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
       The majority and minority counsel and staff will treat the 
     investigative plan, all consultations, the development and 
     recommendations, the identity of interviewees and deponent, 
     and all evidence obtained through the investigation on a 
     confidential basis.
     XI. Confidentiality of Investigation
       Majority and minority counsel agree that all information 
     gathered in the course of this investigation, as well as any 
     reports drafted by counsel, shall be treated as strictly 
     confidential. Pursuant to this understanding, counsel agree 
     that each consultant law firm will take reasonable measures 
     to ensure that information gathered in the course of, or 
     pertaining to, this investigation is treated confidentially, 
     is not disclosed to individuals within the firm who do not 
     have a direct need to know the information, and is not 
     disseminated outside the firm except to the Members of the 
     Senate Rules and Administration Committee and its staff, 
     unless otherwise directed to do so by the Chairman or Ranking 
     Member. Counsel further agree that the information gathered 
     during this investigation will be used solely in connection 
     with this matter and use for any other purpose is expressly 
     forbidden. In order to ensure strict confidentiality in this 
     matter, each firm will implement reasonable security measures 
     for all documents and other materials related to this 
     investigation and shall inform all individuals working on 
     this matter of the requirements of this section.
     Richard Cullen,
       McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P.
     Robert F. Bauer,
       Perkins Coie.
     Richard Cullen.
     George J. Terwilliger, III,
       Counsel for the Majority, United States Senate Committee on 
     Rules and Administration.

                               Exhibit 4


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 1997.
     Richard Cullen, Esq.,
     McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, Richmond, VA.
     George J. Terwilliger III, Esq.
     McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, Washington, DC.
       Dear Richard and George: On behalf of the Senate Committee 
     on Rules and Administration, this letter confirms our 
     retention of your services to assist the committee in its 
     Constitutional responsibility, pursuant to a petition filed 
     by United States Senate candidate Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins, to 
     review questions raised about the 1996 U.S. Senate race in 
     Louisiana. This retainer letter also covers the retention of 
     services of other McGuire Woods partners and associations.
       In accordance with Senate procedures, this petition was 
     filed with the Vice President of the United States, in his 
     capacity as President of the Senate, and referred to this 
     committee for consideration as we have jurisdiction over this 
     matter. On April 17, 1997, the Committee authorized an 
     ``Investigation of such scope as deemed necessary by the 
     Chairman, into illegal or improper activities to determine 
     the existence or absence of a body of fact that would justify 
     the Senate in making the determination that fraud, 
     irregularities or other errors, in the aggregate, affected 
     the outcome of the election for United States Senator in the 
     State of Louisiana in 1996.''
       This investigation shall be conducted in conjunction with 
     counsel for the minority, and an identical retainer has been 
     extended to Robert F. Bauer and John Hume of Perkins Cole.
       Pursuant to your discussions with Committee counsel, please 
     sign the original enclosed contract and return it for our 
     records.
           Sincerely,
     John Warner.
     Wendell H. Ford.

                               Exhibit 5


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 1997.
     Robert F. Bauer, Esq.,
     John P. Hume, Esq.,
     Perkins Coie, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob and John: On behalf of the Senate Committee on 
     Rules and Administration, this letter confirms our retention 
     of your services to assist the committee in its 
     Constitutional responsibility, pursuant to a petition filed 
     by United States Senate candidate Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins, to 
     review questions raised about the 1996 U.S. Senate race in 
     Louisiana. This retainer letter also covers the retention of 
     services of other Perkins Coie partners and associates.
       In accordance with Senate procedures, this petition was 
     filed with the Vice President of the United States, in his 
     capacity as President of the Senate, and referred to this 
     committee for consideration as we have jurisdiction over this 
     matter. On April 17, 1997, the Committee authorized an 
     ``Investigation of such scope as deemed necessary by the 
     Chairman, into illegal or improper activities to determine 
     the existence or absence of a body of fact that would justify 
     the Senate in making the determination that fraud, 
     irregularities or other errors, in the aggregate, affected 
     the outcome of the election for United States Senator in the 
     State of Louisiana in 1996.''
       This investigation shall be conducted in conjunction with 
     counsel for the majority, and an identical retainer has been 
     extended to Richard Cullen and George Terwilliger of McGuire 
     Woods Battle & Boothe.
       Pursuant to your discussions with Committee counsel, please 
     sign the original enclosed contract and return it for our 
     records.
           Sincerely,
     John Warner.
     Wendell H. Ford.

                               Exhibit 6


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     The Attorney General of the United States, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Louis J. Freeh,
     The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General and Director Freeh: As you 
     know, the 1996 Senate race in Louisiana is being contested. 
     Under Article I, section 5, of the U.S. Constitution,

[[Page S6484]]

     the Senate has exclusive responsibility to judge the final 
     results of this election.
       The Committee on Rules and Administration has initial 
     jurisdiction over this matter for the Senate, and I am 
     privileged to serve as its Chairman. The Committee met three 
     times in open session to discuss the election contest and has 
     authorized me by Committee Motion to conduct an 
     investigation, in consultation with the Ranking Member, 
     Senator Wendell Ford. Senator Ford and I have each retained 
     counsel from outside law firms to assist the Committee, and 
     we executed contracts with these attorneys on May 7.
       In my opinion, there is no more serious responsibility of 
     the Senate than to determine the validity or non-validity of 
     an election for United States Senator. The freedom that we 
     enjoy is predicated on the American people having confidence 
     in our election laws and believing that they have been 
     complied with in elections for the Congress.
       I make no prejudgment as to the few facts that are before 
     the Senate at this time. But there is a clear duty to conduct 
     such investigation as we deem necessary so that the full 
     Senate can make an informed decision as to the election 
     contest.
       Given the importance of this matter to our federal system, 
     I call on the Department of Justice to provide the United 
     States Senate with the assistance of several investigators to 
     work with our designated counsel and other persons engaged by 
     the Committee to conduct this investigation. I believe that 
     the credibility and experience of agents detailed from the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation will help to establish a like 
     credibility in the outcome of the Senate's investigation.
       I request that at your earliest opportunity we meet 
     concerning this matter, hopefully to be joined by Senator 
     Ford, to ascertain your willingness for the Department to 
     assist the United States Senate.
       Enclosed is copy of the authorizing Committee Motion, along 
     with a recent floor statement I made concerning the contest 
     and other relevant documents, which should allow your 
     advisors to quickly understand the Committee's 
     responsibilities and the specifics regarding the content.
       The Committee point of contact is Bruce Kasold at (202) 
     224-3448. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Warner
                                                         Chairman.

                               Exhibit 7


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     The Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Louis J. Freeh,
     Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General and Director Freeh: As you are 
     aware, the Committee on Rules and Administration is 
     conducting preliminary investigation into allegations of 
     fraud and other irregularities which reportedly occurred in 
     the 1996 U.S. Senate race in Louisiana. The Committee 
     anticipates that this investigation will last approximately 
     45 days.
       The Committee has hired outside counsel to advise the 
     Committee and direct this investigation. It is their strong 
     recommendation that the Committee augment our resources with 
     professional investigators. In order to expedite and 
     facilitate this investigation, and ensure the level of 
     investigative professionalism required in such a case, the 
     Committee respectfully requests the assistance of detailees 
     from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       The Committee has identified an immediate need for two 
     detailees, preferably with a familiarity with Louisiana, and 
     the New Orleans area specifically. As the investigation 
     progresses, the Committee anticipates a need for at least two 
     additional detailees. We ask that these detailees be provided 
     to the Committee on a non-reimbursable basis, with the 
     Committee bearing the associated travel expenses for these 
     detailees, pursuant to Senate rules.
       The Committee has secured space in the Hale Boggs Federal 
     Building in New Orleans for the duration of this 
     investigation with the exception that attorneys for the 
     Committee will begin occupying that space by early next week. 
     Due to the timeliness of this investigation, we would hope 
     that two detailees could be made available to the Committee 
     at the same time so that the Committee investigation could 
     begin promptly.
       It is important to the Committee that this investigation be 
     conducted with the utmost professionalism and respect for the 
     individuals involved, in particular, the elected officials 
     and citizenry of Louisiana. The reputation and integrity of 
     the Bureau make it the most appropriate source for such 
     assistance. We anticipate that a memorandum of understanding 
     regarding the deployment of these detailees will need to be 
     signed between your office(s) and the Committee. We are 
     prepared to execute that document immediately.
       We greatly appreciate your assistance in this regard.
           Sincerely,
     Wendell H. Ford,
       Ranking Member.
     John Warner,
       Chairman.

                               Exhibit 8

Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Senate Committee 
     on Rules and Administration and the U.S. Department of Justice

       I. This document is a Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') 
     between the United States Senate Committee on Rules and 
     Administration (``Committee'') and the U.S. Department of 
     Justice regarding certain terms and procedures relating to 
     the detail assignment of Special Agents of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation (``FBI'') to the Committee for the purpose 
     of assisting the Committee in its investigation (``Special 
     Investigation'').
       II. Relation of FBI Special Agents detailed to the 
     Committee to the FBI and other components of the Department 
     of Justice.
       (A) FBI Special Agents to be detailed to the Committee 
     (``Committee Investigators'') shall be selected by the FBI 
     after consultation with the Criminal Division of the 
     Department of Justice.
       (B) Committee Investigators shall not report to or receive 
     direction from the FBI or any other component of the 
     Department of Justice regarding the investigative activities 
     of the Committee, except as expressly authorized by the Chief 
     Counsel for the Committee. The activities of the Committee 
     Investigators shall be directed by the Chief Counsel and 
     Minority Chief Counsel of the Committee acting directly or 
     through designated lead counsel for the Special 
     Investigations, as provided in Part III of this MOU.
       (C) Committee Investigators shall not provide any oral or 
     written account of information obtained as a result of the 
     Agents' assignment to the Committee either to the FBI or to 
     the personnel of any other Executive Branch agency without 
     the express authorization of the Chief Counsel and the 
     Minority Chief Counsel for the Committee. Approved 
     communication of such information to the FBI or other 
     components of the Department of Justice shall be through a 
     designated point of contact, as provided in paragraph (F).
       (D) Committee Special Agents shall not exercise any law 
     enforcement authority granted them by law while executing the 
     duties and responsibilities for which they have been detailed 
     to the Committee.
       (E) Committee Special Agents shall not be entitled, by 
     virtue of their status as federal law enforcement officers, 
     to have access to information developed through criminal 
     investigation, including grand jury information.
       (F) All communications [relating directly or indirectly to 
     investigative matters] between Committee Special Agents and 
     the FBI or any other component of the Department of Justice, 
     shall be through a point of contact established by the 
     Department of Justice. The Department of Justice will notify 
     the Chief Counsel of the Committee of the name of that point 
     of contact.
       III. Duties and Responsibilities of the Chief Counsel and 
     Minority Chief Counsel to the Committee.
       (A) FBI Special Agents detailed to the Committee shall be a 
     joint resource to both the Majority and Minority staffs of 
     the Committee and outside counsel retained by the Committee.
       (B) The Committee shall reimburse the FBI for all costs 
     associated with the detail assignment of FBI Special Agents 
     to the Subcommittee, including official travel expenses.
       (C) The Chief Counsel and/or the Minority Chief Counsel 
     shall furnish written or oral responses, if requested by the 
     FBI, regarding the performance appraisal of FBI Special 
     Agents detailed to the Committee.
       (D) All assignments to the Committee Investigators shall be 
     made by the lead attorney and the minority lead attorney, 
     acting jointly, or by either attorney after consultation with 
     the other. All assignments shall, for administrative 
     purposes, be made either by or through the lead attorney for 
     the Special Investigation, to the supervisory Committee 
     Investigator designated by the FBI. The lead attorney for the 
     Special Investigation shall provide timely notice to the 
     minority lead attorney for the Special Investigation of all 
     assignments to the agents.
       (E) Unless directed otherwise by the lead counsel for the 
     Special Investigation, the Committee Investigators may 
     conduct interviews personally or by the telephone.
       IV. Duties and Responsibilities of the Committee 
     Investigators.
       (A) The Committee Investigators shall assist the Committee 
     in all tasks related to the objectives of the Committee in 
     its investigation.
       (B) Except as otherwise provided in this MOU, the Committee 
     Investigators will remain subject to the personnel rules, 
     regulations, laws and policies applicable to FBI employees. 
     The Committee Investigators will also adhere to Committee 
     rules and regulations which are applicable to the performance 
     of their assigned duties at the Committee, so long as those 
     rules do not conflict with FBI rules and regulations.
       (C) Except in extraordinary circumstances, Committee 
     Investigators shall provide the lead attorney for the Special 
     Investigation, who shall in turn notify the minority lead 
     attorney for the Special Investigation, sufficient advance 
     notice of any pending appointments for interviews, so that 
     either attorney for the Special Investigation can determine 
     whether to assign an attorney to join the interview.
       (D) With regard to all investigative activities performed 
     for the Committee, Committee Investigators
       (1) shall identify themselves as staff investigators of the 
     Committee, and not as federal law enforcement agents;

[[Page S6485]]

       (2) shall not possess a firearm nor display FBI credentials 
     or badge during the conduct of any personal interviews or 
     other investigative activity;
       (3) shall inquire whether a witness to be interviewed is 
     represented by counsel, and if so, inform the lead attorney 
     for the Special Investigation accordingly, prior to 
     scheduling the interview;
       (4) shall take notes during all interviews and keep the 
     originals of the same as a record of the Committee;
       (5) shall reduce to writing, in memorandum form, the 
     substance of all witness interviews within five working days, 
     unless circumstances prevent that schedule and the lead 
     attorney for the Special Investigations approves the delay;
       (6) shall provide both the lead attorney and the minority 
     lead attorney for Special Investigation a copy of the 
     interview memorandum; and
       (7) shall insure that any documents, records, exhibits, or 
     other evidence obtained from the interviewed witness are 
     turned over immediately to both the lead attorney and the 
     minority lead attorney for the Special Investigation pursuant 
     to the procedures relating to the same.
       V. Termination
       This agreement may be terminated by any of the undersigned 
     upon written notice to the others.
       Approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration of 
     the United States Senate.
       Chairman John Warner.
       Ranking Member Wendell H. Ford.
       Howard M. Shapiro, General Counsel, FBI.
       Mark M. Richard, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 
     Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice.

                               Exhibit 9

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration,
                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 1997.
     Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Wendell: Per our conversation, let me state my intent 
     with regard to the rights of the Committee minority as they 
     apply to the preliminary investigation into the contest of 
     the 1996 Senate election in Louisiana.
       First, as I understand to be reflected in the investigative 
     protocol provision regarding the issuance of subpoenas, I 
     agree that the subpoena power delegated to the Chairman, with 
     the approval of the ranking minority member of the Committee, 
     pursuant to Rule A of the Committee's supplemental rules of 
     procedure adopted on April 17, 1997, shall be used reasonably 
     and equitably to compel the attendance of any witness or the 
     production of any documents requested by a majority of the 
     minority members of the Committee.
       Second, I agree that when majority and minority counsel 
     cannot agree on investigative issues, decisions, or aspects 
     of the conduct of the investigation, then they shall, at the 
     request of either counsel, bring their disagreement to the 
     immediate attention of the Chairman and ranking minority 
     member. If the Chairman and ranking member cannot agree, then 
     the full Committee will be asked to resolve the issue after 
     an opportunity for discussion and comment.
       Third, I agree that at any hearing held for the purpose of 
     taking recorded, sworn, or unsworn testimony, at least three 
     days' notice shall be given and any member or members of the 
     Committee may attend and participate.
       I hope this clarifies my position.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      John Warner,
                                                         Chairman.

                               Exhibit 10


                                                 McGuire Woods

                                                   Battle & Boothe


                               memorandum

     To: Senate Rules Committee
     From: George J. Terwilliger and Frank Atkinson
     Date: June 23, 1997

     Re: Jenkins-Landrieu--Voting Procedures and Election 
         Safeguards


   background information--voting procedures and election safeguards

       Louisiana has been plagued by a history of election fraud, 
     and the state therefore has enacted elaborate voting 
     procedures and safeguards designed to guard the integrity of 
     elections. The state legislature has expressly recognized the 
     state's ``longstanding history of election problems, such as 
     multiple voting, votes being recorded for persons who did not 
     vote, votes being recorded for deceased persons, voting by 
     non-residents, vote buying, and voter intimidation.'' La. 
     R.S. 18:1463.
       Secretary of State McKeithen is the ``chief election 
     officer of the state.'' La R.S. 18:421.A. He has publicly 
     sated: ``Our [election] law, if strictly followed, is 
     probably the tightest law in the country. The problem was it 
     wasn't followed [in the November 1996 election].'' \1\*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     *Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Even where modern voting machines are used and post-
     election tampering with the machines is made generally 
     impracticable by a combination of machine security features 
     and procedural safeguards, the possibility of fraud still 
     exists whenever one person (or several acting in concert) can 
     gain access to precinct registers, poll lists, absentee voter 
     lists, and other documentary materials used on or before 
     election day.
       Voting machines are devices for recording and tallying the 
     number of votes, the accuracy of the tally is vitally 
     important, but it is only one component of an honest 
     election.
       The integrity of the election also turns upon the validity 
     of the votes cast, and this central facet of election 
     administration is addressed in detail in Louisiana statutes 
     that prescribe the preparation, use and post-election 
     disposition and custody of various written election records. 
     These written records provide an indispensable check that 
     guards against improper manipulation of voting machines 
     before, on, or after election day.\2\


     summary : key procedural provisions and breaches of safeguards

     4. Key procedural provisions
       State law provides that a precinct register (together with 
     a supplemental list of absentee voters) is to be used at each 
     polling place.
       The precinct register contains an alphabetical listing of 
     all registered voters in the precinct. Voters must sign the 
     precinct register when they vote, and an election 
     commissioner also must sign (initial) opposite each voter's 
     signature.
       Election commissioners in each precinct are also required 
     to prepare two (duplicate) poll lists.
       The poll lists contain the names of actual voters recorded 
     in the order that they vote. Election commissioners record 
     the names of voters on sheets with consecutively numbered 
     spaces.
       Voters and election commissioners must execute certain 
     other documents in prescribed circumstances, including 
     Address Confirmation at Polls (ACP) forms, Affidavit of 
     Voters (AV-33) forms, and Challenge of Voter (CV-56) forms.
       When the polls close, election commissioners are required 
     to follow specific procedures. With regard to the disposition 
     of the written election records, each of the following must 
     be accomplished by midnight on the day of the election and in 
     the presence of commissioned poll watchers:
       Election commissioners are required [a] to place certain 
     specified records in a Registrar of Voters (ROV) envelope, 
     [b] to then place the ROV envelope inside the precinct 
     register and seal the precinct register,\3\ [c] to then seal 
     one copy of the poll list and certain other specified records 
     inside the Put in Voting Machine (P-16) envelope, [d] to then 
     place the sealed P-16 envelope and the precinct register 
     inside the voting machine, and, finally, [e] to lock the 
     voting machine and seal the key inside the Return Key 
     Envelope (C-03).
       Election commissioners are required to place certain other 
     specified records, including the other copy of the poll list, 
     in the Secretary of State (S-19) envelope and to mail the S-
     19 envelope to the Secretary of State.
       Election commissioners are required to deliver the sealed 
     Return Key Envelope and certain other specified records to 
     the parish clerk of court.
       Other provisions specifically govern the counting of 
     absentee votes and the disposition of absentee vote records.
     B. Identified breaches of election safeguards
       Secretary of State Mckeithen and several staff members were 
     interviewed by Senate Rules Committee outside co-counsel on 
     May 13 and May 30, 1997. They identified and/or confirmed the 
     following breaches of election safeguards:
       Election commissioners were required by law to mail one set 
     of election records to the Secretary of State on election 
     night. Commissioners in Orleans Parish and several other 
     parishes were instructed by the parish clerk of court's 
     office to--and did--deliver this set of records to the parish 
     clerk of court instead of the Secretary of State, in 
     violation of the state law.
       Instructional materials prepared by the Commissioner of 
     Elections, Jerry Fowler, and his office directed the parish 
     election commissioners to deliver the Secretary of State's 
     set of election records to the parish clerk of court instead 
     of mailing them to the Secretary of State, as required by 
     state law. These instructions were prepared unilaterally by 
     Commissioner Fowler's office in violation of another state 
     law which requires that such instructional materials be 
     prepared jointly by the Commissioner of Elections and the 
     Secretary of State and be approved by the Attorney General 
     before distribution to election commissioners.
       Voting machines in Orleans Parish were unsealed and opened 
     before the appointed time and outside the presence of 
     candidate representatives, in violation of state law.
       Secretary of State McKeithen also made the general 
     observation--not specific to any particular parish--that 
     election commissioners routinely failed to require voters to 
     prove their identity in accordance with state law.
       District Attorney Doug Moreau of East Baton Rouge Parish 
     and his assistant were interviewed by Senate Rules Committee 
     outside co-counsel on May 13 and May 30, 1997. From his 
     office's review of election records obtained from Orleans 
     Parish pursuant to subpoena, he has found the following:
       Besides mailing one set of original precinct election 
     records to the Secretary of State on election night (the ``S-
     19 envelope''), parish election commissioners are required by 
     law to seal the other set of original records in an envelope 
     (``the P-16 envelope''), seal the precinct register, and lock 
     the sealed P-16 envelope and sealed precinct register in the 
     precinct voting machine. Moreau subpoenaed

[[Page S6486]]

     the P-16 envelopes and contents from Orleans Parish. After 
     reviewing approximately half of these records, he found that 
     none had ever been sealed in accordance with state law.
       According to Moreau and his assistant, Sandra Ribes, the 
     Orleans Parish P-16 envelopes appear to have many missing 
     items and discrepancies, including irregularities in record-
     keeping for absentee voters. Rather than relying upon 
     Moreau's review, however, we have requested these records so 
     that we can conduct our own audit. Our request is pending, so 
     Moreau still has these records.
       In response to Moreau's subpoena, it was disclosed by the 
     Clerk of Court in Baton Rouge that many original election 
     records for East Baton Rouge Parish have been discarded, in 
     apparent violation of state law.
       Commissioner of Elections Jerry Fowler and staff members 
     were interviewed by Senate Rules Committee outside co-counsel 
     on May 13 and May 30, 1997. They confirmed the following:
       Although Fowler's office prepared videotapes and 
     instructional materials properly directing election 
     commissioners to mail the S-19 envelopes and contents to the 
     Secretary of State's office, they did also prepare certain 
     ``customized'' videotapes and instructional materials--at the 
     request of several parish clerks of court, including the 
     Orleans clerk's office--directing the election commissioners 
     in those parishes to send the S-19 records to the parish 
     clerk of court instead of the Secretary of State.
       Staff working for the Orleans Parish clerk's office did 
     unlock and open voting machines and remove records outside 
     the presence of designated candidate representatives a short 
     time before the appointed hour for the opening of the 
     machines three days after the election.
       State employees reporting to Fowler were in control of the 
     warehouse in which the locked voting machines in Orleans 
     Parish were stored prior to the opening of them three days 
     after the election. The clerk of court of Orleans Parish had 
     ``legal custody'' of the voting machines during this period. 
     It is unclear whether the clerk's staff had actual access to 
     the voting machines during this time. They may have had 
     access to an office within the warehouse, and the portion of 
     the warehouse where the machines were stored was accessible 
     from that office. There was no regular inspection of the 
     storage area nor security check by any of Fowler's employees.
       The rear of the AVC voting machines used in Orleans Parish 
     contains a door that can be locked but has no ready means of 
     sealing. This is the area where the election records (P-16 
     envelopes and precinct registers) were stored. Since the 
     machines were locked but not sealed, a person with a key to 
     the machines could gain access to these election records 
     without it being physically evident that access was gained.
       Also relevant to the investigation of breached election 
     safeguards are the admissions by several Orleans Parish 
     election commissioners that they accepted payments from 
     gaming organizations interested in the outcome of questions 
     on the November 1996 ballot. At least one election 
     commissioner has admitted receiving such a payment for 
     electioneering activity performed on election day.


                           particular issues

     Separation of election records; delivery to Secretary of 
         State
       Legal Requirement: State law requires election 
     commissioners to mail the Secretary of State (S-19) envelope 
     containing one of the poll lists and other records directly 
     to the Secretary of State's office before midnight. La. R.S. 
     18:572.A(2) and B.
       Secretary of State McKeithen explained that this safeguard 
     is designed to prevent tampering with the written election 
     records by separating the poll lists and other important 
     documents immediately upon their leaving the polling places. 
     State law requires that one of the poll lists be mailed to 
     the Secretary of State while the other is to be sealed in an 
     envelope and locked in the voting machine. Mr. McKeithen 
     stated that this is an important safeguard against election 
     fraud, and he noted that it also is a means by which clerks 
     of court can avoid vulnerability to fraud allegations by 
     ensuring they do not have access to all copies of key 
     election records.
       Mr. McKeithen stated that, until the recent disclosure that 
     a contrary practice existed in certain parishes, he was 
     unaware of these election law violations. He further stated 
     that, if he had been aware of the existence of this contrary 
     practice, he would have acted decisively to prevent the 
     violations.
       Violations: Secretary of State McKeithen, Commission of 
     Elections Fowler, and members of their respective staffs 
     confirmed published reports that election commissioners in at 
     least Orleans, Jefferson, and East Baton Rouge Parishes 
     failed to comply with the legal requirement that they mail 
     the S-19 envelopes and contents to the Secretary of State on 
     election night. Instead, the commissioners delivered the 
     envelopes and contents to their respective parish clerks of 
     court. This placed the second copy of each precinct's poll 
     list and other original records in the custody of the single 
     local election official with access to the remainder of the 
     original records.
       Because the Secretary of State does not log in the 
     envelopes upon receipt in his office, we do not know how long 
     the S-19 envelopes and contents remained in the possession of 
     the respective parish clerks of court before they were sent 
     to the Secretary of State.\4\
       We do not have authoritative information as to the other 
     parishes in which this violation of state law occurred, when 
     and where such violations have occurred in the past, or the 
     reason or reasons given by the election commissioners-in-
     charge who took that action. We do know, however, that in the 
     three parishes identified above, and apparently in others, 
     the respective parish clerks of court instructed election 
     commissioners to deliver the S-19 envelopes and contents to 
     them rather than to mail them to the Secretary of State as 
     required by state law.
       Commissioner Fowler and his staff confirmed that 
     instructional materials, including both written guidelines 
     and video tapes, were used by the clerks of court to prepare 
     election commissioners in their parishes. In Orleans and 
     apparently other parishes, these materials expressly 
     instructed election commissioners to send the S-19 envelopes 
     and contents to the clerks of the court.
       The proper procedure for disposition of the S-19 envelopes 
     should have been clear to the clerks of court and the 
     election commissioners. The Informational Pamphlet prepared 
     jointly by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of 
     Elections, approved by the Attorney General, and distributed 
     to election commissioners and clerks of court expressly 
     instructs the commissioners to mail these envelopes, with the 
     prescribed contents, to the Secretary of State by midnight on 
     election night. The front of the S-19 envelope itself lists 
     in bold print the items that must be enclosed and specifies 
     that the envelope must be mailed to the Secretary of State.
       Importantly, the S-19 envelopes were not sealed by 
     activating adhesive on the envelop flaps or by any other 
     method that would prevent undetectable access. Instead, when 
     ultimately received in the Secretary of State's office, the 
     S-19 envelopes generally were clasped using the metal clasp 
     that is standard on manila-type envelopes.
       Although there is no statutory requirement that the S-19 
     envelopes be ``sealed,'' the requirement that they be 
     ``mail[ed]'' would seem to imply a more secure closing of the 
     envelopes than that accomplished through use of the metal 
     clasp alone. However, Secretary KcKeithen and his staff 
     advised us that the S-19 envelopes have routinely been 
     received by his office in a clasped but unsealed condition.
       Regardless of the propriety of the practice of not sealing 
     the S-19 envelopes, the significant point is that those 
     envelopes were--while unlawfully in the possession of the 
     clerks of court (and any others to whom they granted 
     access)--in a condition that permitted easy and undetectable 
     access to their contents.\5\
       The significance of the unsealed condition of the S-19 
     envelopes and the accessibility of their contents is 
     reflected in a published comment made by Alan Elkins, 
     principal assistant to Commissioner of Elections Jerry 
     Fowler. As described below, Elkins was one of the persons 
     involved in preparing instructional materials that directed 
     election commissioners in some parishes to send the S-19 
     envelopes to the parish clerks of court in violation of state 
     law. Speaking shortly after the disclosure of these 
     violations last month, Elkins was quoted as saying: ``What 
     difference does it make? Those envelopes are sealed anyway. 
     You can't open them without the appearance of them being 
     opened.'' \6\ In our interview, Elkins acknowledged that the 
     S-19 envelopes actually were not sealed; he now expresses the 
     opinion that fastening the envelopes by clasp was sufficient.
     2. Instructions to election commissioners regarding voting 
         procedures and disposition of records.
       Legal Requirement: State law assigns various 
     responsibilities for election administration among the 
     Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Elections. While 
     the Commissioner of Elections has statutory authority over 
     the voting machines, the Secretary of State is the chief 
     election officer of the state. Accordingly, state law 
     requires that written instructions to election commissioners 
     regarding voting procedures be prepared jointly by the 
     Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Elections, and 
     that these instructions be approved by the Attorney General 
     La. R.S. 18:421.C.
       Secretary of State McKeithen described this provision to us 
     as an important check and balance that is necessary in light 
     of Louisiana's checkered election history.
       Violation: The Commissioner of Elections and members of his 
     staff acknowledged to us that, within the last four or five 
     years, they have prepared written and videotape instructional 
     materials that direct election commissioners to deliver the 
     S-19 envelopes and the election records contained therein to 
     the parish clerk of court, rather than by mail to the 
     Secretary of State, as required under state law. The 
     Commissioner's staff advised us that they produced a standard 
     instructional videotape that directed precinct election 
     commissioners to mail the S-19 envelopes and contents to the 
     Secretary of State, but that, at the request of various 
     parish clerks of court, they also ``customized'' some of the 
     videotapes to direct that the S-19 envelopes and contents 
     instead be delivered to the clerks of court. Corresponding 
     written instructions also directed the delivery of the S-19 
     envelopes and contents to the clerks of court in those 
     parishes.
       Commissioner Fowler and his staff were unable to tell us 
     with specificity which parishes requested and received 
     instructional

[[Page S6487]]

     tapes and written materials ``customized'' in this manner. He 
     did indicate a general belief that the preparation of these 
     instructional materials corresponded with the introduction 
     and initial use of the new ``AVC'' (Sequoia) voting machines 
     in Orleans and several of the other larger parishes. These 
     tapes and written materials primarily were concerned with 
     instructing commissioners in the use of these new and 
     unfamiliar voting machines, but, for reasons Commissioner 
     Fowler did not explain, they also included instructions on 
     the disposition of the S-19 envelopes, which have nothing to 
     do with the voting machines.
       Secretary of State McKeithen expressed strong objections to 
     the Commissioner's unilateral preparation of these 
     instructional materials, of which the Secretary of State only 
     became aware last month. McKeithen acknowledged that the 
     Commissioner of Elections is responsible for instructing 
     precinct commissioners in the use of voting machines and 
     therefore could properly prepare those instructions 
     unilaterally, but he stated that the inclusion of 
     instructions regarding disposition of election records was 
     clearly outside of the Commissioner's lawful authority. 
     Secretary McKeithen called attention to the stark conflict 
     between the Informational Pamphlet, which was jointly 
     prepared by McKeithen and Fowler and approved by the Attorney 
     General, and the videotape and accompanying written materials 
     that were unilaterally prepared by Fowler's office in 
     collaboration with local clerks of court. The Informational 
     Pamphlet properly advises precinct commissioners to mail the 
     S-19 envelopes to the Secretary of State; the other materials 
     direct the local commissioners to send the S-19 envelopes to 
     the clerk of court in violation of state law.
     3. Sealing of envelopes containing original records; locking 
         of percent registers and envelopes in voting machines
       Legal Requirement: As noted above, state law requires that, 
     in the presence of poll watchers and before midnight on 
     election day, election commissioners must seal one copy of 
     the poll list and certain other specified records inside the 
     P-16 envelope, which is marked ``Put in Voting Machine.'' La 
     R.S. 18:571(12). The election commissioner then must place 
     the sealed P-16 envelope and the sealed precinct register in 
     the voting machine, lock the machine, and seal the key in the 
     Return of Key envelope. La. R.S. 18:571(11), (12), (13), 
     (14).
       Violation: We have been advised by District Attorney Moreau 
     and his staff that they have examined approximately half of 
     the P-16 envelopes from Orleans Parish, and that none of the 
     envelopes are, or appear to ever have been, sealed in 
     accordance with state law. The P-16 envelopes contained one 
     of the two poll lists, and the failure to seal these 
     envelopes as expressly mandated by state law represents 
     another significant breach of the statutory safeguards 
     relating to election records. We do not yet know whether the 
     precinct registers were sealed.
       Importantly, election commissioners in Orleans Parish 
     placed the unsealed P-16 envelopes and the precinct registers 
     in AVC voting machines that were themselves unsealed. State 
     law required the commissioners to lock the door to the rear 
     area of the machines where the records were placed, but, 
     unlike other types of voting machines, the entire AVC machine 
     is not sealed. On the AVC voting machines, the computer 
     cartridge alone is sealed, and the rear area containing the 
     precinct register and P-16 envelopes is merely locked. This 
     circumstance aggravates the concern about the failure of 
     Orleans Parish commissioners to seal the P-16 envelopes (and 
     possibly the precinct registers). Since these crucial records 
     were placed unsealed in a portion of the voting machines that 
     was locked but not sealed, anyone with access to a machine 
     key could have gained direct access to the election records 
     without detection.
     4. Unlocking and unsealing of voting machines in the presence 
         of candidates or their representatives
       Legal Requirement: State law provides that the voting 
     machines are to be transferred from the precinct polling 
     place to the custody of the parish clerk of court and are to 
     be opened, in the presence of representatives of the 
     candidates, three days after the election. La. R.S. 18:573.A, 
     18:573.B.
       Violation: Secretary of State McKeithen, Commissioner of 
     Elections Fowler, and members of their respective staffs 
     confirmed to us that some significant number of voting 
     machines in Orleans Parish were unlocked and unsealed outside 
     the presence of candidate representatives and before the 
     announced time for the supervised opening of the machines. 
     Neither had direct knowledge of the particulars, but both 
     indicated that Orleans Parish officials had acknowledged the 
     improper action occurred.
       McKeithen cited this improper action as a serious breach 
     that, in tandem with other known violations such as the 
     Clerk's receipt of the S-19 envelopes, rendered the Clerk of 
     Court of Orleans Parish, Mr. Edwin Lombard, vulnerable to 
     allegations of election irregularity.
       In contrast, Fowler stated to us his understanding that 
     this unlawful action was inconsequential since, according to 
     the information relayed to him, the machines were opened at 
     most fifteen minutes or so before they should have been. 
     Commissioner Fowler further stated his understanding that Mr. 
     Lombard had not personally authorized the improper action; he 
     identified the Deputy Clerk, Mr. Broussard, as the senior 
     official with the clerk of court's office who was present 
     when the machines were opened. Both McKeithen and Fowler 
     stated that the ceremonial opening of voting machines in the 
     presence of witnesses three days after the election had 
     traditionally been regarded as an important event and 
     election safeguard. However, Fowler nevertheless ventured the 
     opinion that the action of clerk's office personnel in 
     opening the machines early, outside the presence of candidate 
     representatives, and notwithstanding the close and contested 
     nature of this particular election, was an incidental action 
     taken for the innocent purpose of expediting the machine 
     opening process.
       While Louisiana law was violated by the opening of some or 
     all Orleans Parish voting machines in the manner described 
     above, the significance of this violation in terms of the 
     opportunity for election fraud will not be clear until 
     further investigation has been completed, with regard to 
     access to the election records locked in the voting 
     machines, the following facts are noteworthy:
       The voting machines were in the legal custody of the clerk 
     of court from the time they left the polling place until the 
     unlocking and unsealing of the machines on the third day 
     after the election.
       The keys to the voting machines were in the possession of 
     the clerk of court during this same period. They should have 
     been contained in an envelope that remained sealed until the 
     envelope was opened and the keys removed in the presence of 
     witnesses three days after the election. However, because the 
     clerk's employees began opening the machines early and 
     outside the presence of witnesses, it is not known whether, 
     and for how long, the key envelopes remained sealed while in 
     the clerk's custody.
       The precinct register, poll lists and other original 
     election records were locked in the voting machines, but the 
     rear area of the machines in which they were locked was not 
     sealed; therefore, undetected access to the election records 
     in the machines was possible for anyone possessing a key to 
     the machines.
       Prior to the opening of the machines, they were stored in a 
     warehouse controlled by Commissioner Fowler and designated 
     members of his staff. Clerk of Court Lombard had legal 
     custody of the machines during this time, but the extent, if 
     any, to which he and his staff had actual access to the 
     machines is an issue for investigation. Clerk's office 
     personnel may have had access at will to an office area 
     within the warehouse where the machines were stored, and 
     there was unobstructed access from the office area to the 
     part of the warehouse containing the voting machines.
       Taken together, the foregoing tends to confirm that the 
     Clerk of Court of Orleans Parish, and presumably persons on 
     his staff, may well have had the ready ability to gain access 
     to the original election records in the voting machines if 
     they so chose. This ability apparently existed for 2-3 days. 
     In combination with the unlawful failure to seal the 
     envelopes and election registers placed in the machines and 
     the unlawful failure to send the other set of election 
     records directly to the Secretary of State, the result in 
     Orleans Parish appears to have been the very situation--a 
     person or small group of persons enjoying access to all 
     copies of crucial election records--that Louisiana law was 
     designed to prevent.
     Payments to election commissioners; related issues
       Legal Requirement: State law prescribes the qualifications, 
     powers, duties, compensation required training, and method of 
     selection of the precinct election commissioner-in-charge and 
     the other precinct election commissioners who administer the 
     election at the polling places. See La. R.S. 18:424, 18:425, 
     18:426, 18:431, 18:431.1, 18:433, 18:434. Election 
     commissioners are expressly prohibited from 
     ``electioneer[ing], engag[ing] in political discussions, . . 
     . or prepar[ing] a list of persons at the polling place'' 
     (La. R.S. 18:425.C), and they may not ``in any manner attempt 
     to influence any voter to vote for or against any candidate 
     or election being held in that polling place'' (La. R.S. 
     18:1462. C). As a practical matter, these officials have 
     virtually no opportunity to assist a candidate or ballot 
     proposition at any other polling place on election day, since 
     they are required to report to the polling place at which 
     they serve no later than 5:30 a.m. on election day and to 
     remain there for the duration of the voting and post-voting 
     procedures; the clerk of court must approve the appointment 
     of any replacement commissioner on election day. La. R.S. 
     18:433.E(2), 18:434.D, 18:434.E. The lawful compensation of 
     election commissioners is prescribed by statute. La. R.S. 
     18:424.E. 425.E. State law specifically provides that no 
     person shall ``[o]ffer money or anything of present or 
     prospective value . . . to influence a commissioner . . . in 
     the performance of his duties on election day.'' La. R.S. 
     18:1461.A(8). Election commissioners must be selected at 
     random from a list of duly trained and certified persons. La. 
     R.S. 18:433.B, 18:434.B.
       Possible Violation: News media reports earlier this year 
     disclosed that five election commissioners in Orleans Parish 
     had been paid by gambling interests with issues on the 
     November 5, 1996 ballot. They each received from $30 to $800 
     from Bally's Casino and Harrah's Jazz Co. for canvassing and 
     distributing ballots. Three of the five were commissioners-
     in-charge. One of the commissioners-

[[Page S6488]]

     in-charge was paid $120 for canvassing on election day. 
     Harrah's and Bally's both denied any awareness that the 
     recipients of these payments were election commissioners.\7\
       Whether these, and any other, election commissioners 
     received illegal payments or otherwise engaged in illegal 
     activity, and the extent of any such activity, is unknown at 
     this time. When viewed in the context of the opportunities 
     for election fraud created by the breaches of election 
     safeguards previously discussed, the prospect that the 
     integrity and impartiality of election commissioners may have 
     been compromised is obviously of significant concern. These 
     published admissions by certain election commissioners in 
     Orleans Parish suggest the need for close examination of the 
     method of selection and conduct of other election 
     commissioners, particularly in Orleans Parish where the 
     above-described electoral irregularities occurred.
     6. Designation of absentee voters; related issues
       Legal Requirement: State law authorizes voters in certain 
     circumstances to vote absentee by mail or absentee in person. 
     Absentee in person voting is permitted from twelve days to 
     six days prior to an election. Voters wishing to vote 
     absentee in person must go to the parish registrar's office 
     or other designated location during this time period, present 
     proper identification, cast an absentee ballot, and sign the 
     precinct register or other absentee voter list. Voters 
     wishing to vote absentee by mail must submit a signed 
     application letter and return their absentee ballots before 
     election day. The registrar must enter the word ``absentee'' 
     and the date of the election in the precinct register for 
     each person who votes absentee in person or absentee by mail 
     prior to the sixth day before the election. La. R.S. 
     18:1311.B After the sixth day, absentee by mail votes 
     received in the registrar's office are recorded on a 
     supplemental absentee voters list.
       Possible Violation: Based on information provided to us by 
     District Attorney Moreau and his staff, there reportedly are 
     significant discrepancies in election records which suggest a 
     failure to follow statutorily prescribed absentee voting 
     procedures in at least some precincts in Orleans Parish.
       Moreau reviewed some Orleans Parish precinct registers 
     before they were produced in response to the Senate's 
     subpoena, and his review found widespread instances where the 
     registrar's office failed to note ``absentee'' on the 
     precinct register by the names of persons who, according to 
     records maintained by the Commissioner of Elections, did vote 
     by absentee ballot. In the absence of some such identifying 
     mark on the precinct register, it cannot be determined which 
     signatures on the precinct register were supplied by voters 
     on election day and which names were placed on the register 
     before election day.
       If our own review of the Orleans Parish election records 
     reveals that election commissioners there did not receive 
     precinct registers properly marked to identify absentee 
     voters and/or did not receive supplemental lists of absentee 
     voters, then a very important safeguard against multiple 
     voting may have been compromised.
     7. Retention of election records
       Legal Requirement: All voting records and papers must be 
     preserved for at least six months after a general election. 
     La. R.S. 18:403. Certain registration records in federal 
     elections must be preserved for twenty-two months after the 
     election. La. R.S. 18:158.B. In addition, there are special 
     record retention and handling provisions for certain voting 
     records. For instance, the sealed envelope marked ``Put in 
     Voting Machine'' (P-16) must be, after it is removed from the 
     voting machine at the formal opening, preserved ``inviolate'' 
     through the election challenge period. La. R.S. 18:573.D. 
     Similarly, the election result cartridges from voting 
     machines must not be disturbed until the election contest 
     period has lapsed. If no contest is filed, the cartridges may 
     be cleared. La. R.S. 18:1376.B(2).
       Possible Violation: It is our understanding that local 
     parish officials may have destroyed election records prior to 
     the lapse of the six-month retention period, in violation of 
     state law. East Baton Rouge Parish Clerk Doug Welborn has 
     acknowledged that his office discarded 286 envelopes 
     containing poll materials prior to the expiration of the six-
     month retention period. In addition, Allen Parish election 
     records apparently were destroyed due to water damage in a 
     leaky warehouse. We will have a clearer understanding of 
     these and any other document retention/destruction issues 
     after review of the documents and responses received recently 
     from local parish registrars and clerks of court pursuant to 
     the Senate's subpoenas.
     8. Identification of voters at polls
       Legal Requirement: State law requires that election 
     commissioners identify each voter by requiring him or her to 
     submit a current Louisiana driver's license, current 
     registration certificate, other identification card, or by 
     comparison with the descriptive information on the precinct 
     register. La. R.S. 562.D.
       Violation: In response to our query regarding the existence 
     of any other known violations of state election laws in 
     November 1996, Secretary of State McKeithen conveyed to us 
     his general understanding that there were widespread 
     violations of the voter identification requirement in the 
     November 1996 election. Mr. McKeithen related that, in his 
     experience, this provision is not vigorously enforced or 
     complied with in many parishes throughout Louisiana.


                               footnotes

     \1\ ``Officials: Senate Investigators Told of Election 
     Mistakes'', Associated Press, May 16, 1997.
     \2\ We have been supplied with a copy of the ``Informational 
     Pamphlet for Commissioners-in-Charge and Commissioners on 
     Election Day,'' a document prepared jointly by the Louisiana 
     Secretary of State and Commissioner of Elections and approved 
     by the Attorney General of Louisiana as required by state 
     law. The document reflects that it was last revised in May 
     1996. This ``Informational Pamphlet'' is a useful reference 
     for information about the requirements of state election law.
     \3\ There is an apparent discrepancy between the Louisiana 
     election code, which expressly requires that the precinct 
     registers be sealed (see La. R.S. 18:571(11); 18:573.E(1)), 
     and the guidance given election commissioners in the 
     Information Pamphlet, which nowhere instructs election 
     commissioners to seal the precinct register (see pp. 14-16).
     \4\ The clerks of court in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes 
     each wrote letters to the editor of the Times-Picayune that 
     were published on May 21, 1997. Mr. Gegenheimer of Jefferson 
     Parish assets in his letter that his practice conforms to 
     state law because the envelopes are--and on November 5, 1996, 
     were--mailed to the Secretary of State by the Jefferson 
     Parish Clerk of Court before midnight on election day. Mr. 
     Lombard of Orleans Parish apparently does not make the same 
     assertion in his letter, though the wording is ambiguous. Mr. 
     Lombard's letter does, however, respond to assertions by 
     Jenkins workers that they found no Orleans Parish S-19 
     envelopes at the Secretary of State's office as late as 
     November 12, 1997. Mr. Lombard states that ``the Post Office 
     has assured [him] that delivery of all mail sacks was made to 
     the secretary of state before Nov. 12, contrary to 
     allegations by the Jenkins camp.''
     \5\ As noted in footnote 3, Clerks Lombard and Gegenheimer of 
     Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, respectively, each wrote 
     letters to the editor of the Times-Picayune that were 
     published on May 21, 1997. Gegenheimer's letter asserted that 
     the S-19 envelopes were ``sealed'' by the election 
     commissioners at the precincts and that any tampering by the 
     clerk of court ``would be readily discernible.'' Since we 
     have been advised by Secretary of State McKeithen that none 
     of the S-19 envelopes arrived in his office sealed (as 
     opposed to clasped), we need to examine the S-19 envelopes 
     from Jefferson Parish to test the accuracy of Mr. 
     Gegenheimer's assertion. It is noteworthy that Mr. Lombard 
     makes no similar assertion in his letter to the editor, 
     though he does make the statement that ``the U.S. Postal 
     Service provides mail sacks, and seals as well as pickup 
     service for all secretary of state envelopes.'' Both members 
     of Secretary McKeithen's staff and District Attorney Moreau's 
     assistant advised us specifically that the Orleans Parish S-
     19 envelopes were not sealed.
     \6\ Walsh, Bill, ``Guide for Poll Workers Faulty, Parts of 
     Policy Broke State Law,'' New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 17, 
     1997.
     \7\ Varney, James, ``Casinos Paid Poll Officials, Records 
     Show Commissioner Got Money for Work on Election Day,'' New 
     Orleans Times-Picayune, February 27, 1997.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to inform my colleagues 
that as ranking member on the Committee on Rules and Administration, 
committee Democrats can no longer participate in a joint investigation 
of allegations of election fraud in the 1996 Louisiana Senate race as 
alleged by Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins.
  We reached this decision, because what we have learned to date 
suggests a possible fraud on the U.S. Senate and illegal tampering with 
witnesses by agents of Mr. Jenkins. This is nothing short of an 
embarrassment to the Senate and an affront to the people of Louisiana.
  This investigation is over budget, it has exceeded the timeframe 
agreed to, and none of Mr. Jenkins' claims have been substantiated by 
any credible witnesses.
  We come to this decision after waiting 7 months for Mr. Jenkins to 
provide the committee with credible evidence of multiple voting and of 
thousands phantom votes, which he has failed to do.
  Not only have agents to the committee been unable to locate credible 
witnesses, but Government Accounting Office auditors have also been 
unable to substantiate Mr. Jenkins' claims of phantom votes.
  Most disturbing, committee members have learned today that there has 
been continued interference with witnesses to the investigation in 
Louisiana by agents of Mr. Jenkins. I can't imagine any Member of the 
Senate, regardless of the party, who would not find this alarming, 
unacceptable, and certainly nothing the Senate should be party to.
  On behalf of Democratic Rules Committee members, I have referred 
information to the U.S. Department of Justice and asked for an 
investigation into the incidents of witness tampering and interference 
with the U.S. Senate investigation.
  The results to date have shown that the fraud on which Mr. Jenkins' 
allegations rest, were not only solicited by a convicted criminal, but 
involved payment for testimony and are otherwise not credible. There is 
no way that we, in good conscience, can or should proceed with this 
investigation.
  Mr. President, the fraud has been committed against the U.S. Senate,

[[Page S6489]]

not against Mr. Jenkins, and the investigation should be terminated now 
and stop any waste of taxpayers dollars.

                          ____________________