[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7858-S7860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   LOUISIANA SENATE ELECTION CONTEST

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, nearly 3 months ago, the Senate Committee on 
Rules and Administration voted to begin a preliminary investigation to 
determine the factual basis, if any, for a contest of the 1996 Senate 
election in Louisiana. I want to take a few minutes today to review 
where the committee stands in this matter, how we got there, and why I 
believe it is past the time to bring an end to this investigation and 
to dismiss the petition of Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins contesting the 
November 1996 Senate election in Louisiana.
  The Rules Committee is currently faced with a decision: whether or 
not to allow an election contest to proceed, under the Senate's 
authority and duty under the Constitution, without any evidence of 
fraud or irregularities affecting the outcome.
  This is not the first such decision the committee has faced in this 
matter.

[[Page S7859]]

Senators will recall that the initial bipartisan report of the 
committee's outside counsel found no evidence to support the claims in 
the petition, and suggested only the most limited review to determine 
whether or not Mr. Jenkins' more sensational claims of paid multiple 
voting had any merit. My colleagues will also recall that the 
committee, on a party-line vote, rejected that recommendation and moved 
forward with a substantially broader investigation at dramatically 
increased costs. Subject to a protocol negotiated by outside counsel 
for the majority and the minority, committee Democrats agreed to 
participate in a joint investigation.
  Two teams of attorneys, accompanied by active duty and retired FBI 
agents, were dispatched to New Orleans, while here in Washington a pair 
of highly skilled Government Accounting Office [GAO] detailees reviewed 
tens of thousands of documents subpoenaed from state and local election 
officials in Louisiana. In addition, Committee staff spent countless 
hours conferring with counsel, establishing procedures for the 
investigation, assisting GAO with its review, and managing the day-to-
day operations in New Orleans.
  In the course of the joint investigation, over 130 subpoenas were 
issued; key witnesses were interviewed, in some instances more than 
once; voters were contacted in an effort to validate their election day 
sign-in at the polls; numerous election officials were interviewed; and 
hundreds of documents were produced by both Mr. Jenkins' and Senator 
Landrieu's campaign organizations.
  What has the committee learned as a result of all this effort, which 
has cost the taxpayers well in excess of the $250,000 originally 
budgeted, Mr. President?
  We have learned that there is no evidence--I repeat, no evidence, Mr. 
President--of any fraud or irregularity on election day in Louisiana 
that would have affected the outcome of this election.
  We have learned that key witnesses to alleged vote buying and 
multiple voting were paid and schooled in fabricating their stories--
none of which were confirmed by other records--and may have even been 
threatened once they revealed the truth about the attempt to mislead 
this committee. Those allegations of witness tampering which occurred 
after the election have been referred to the proper law enforcement 
officials for review.
  We have learned that virtually none of the thousands of so-called 
``phantom votes'' identified by Mr. Jenkins exist, nor are they 
corroborated by the mounds of election documents subpoenaed.
  We have learned that numerous other so-called irregularities in the 
election are not violations of the Louisiana Election Code, but are 
simply technical violations or are so insignificant that Louisiana 
State law would not recognize them as a valid basis for overturning an 
election.
  Some have suggested that the committee suspend the investigation 
until such time as the law enforcement authorities conclude their 
separate investigations into allegations of witness tampering. I 
believe such sentiment--which I would like to believe is the product of 
caution and not partisanship--is misguided.
  Investigations of criminal tampering with committee witnesses are not 
designed to turn up evidence that is relevant to, let alone sufficient 
for, a finding by the Senate that but for fraud or irregularity, the 
1996 Louisiana Senate election would have been decided differently. 
Specifically, evidence that witnesses were paid after the election to 
lie about illegal activities that did not occur, did not affect the 
outcome of the election itself, and would not be a basis for 
overturning the election.

  I would like to respond to the allegation, made by Mr. Jenkins, at 
least one of my Republican colleagues on the committee, and Mr. 
Jenkins' attorney that the Democrats on the committee are hostile to 
this investigation and have decided to kill it for partisan reasons. In 
response, let me remind my colleagues and everyone else present about 
the time line in this case:
  After his defeat on November 5, 1996, Mr. Jenkins claimed that his 
loss was due to massive voting by dead or incompetent voters. He also 
alleged that certain African-American precincts in New Orleans had 
turned out at greater than 90 percent--in one case at more than 100 
percent--and in support of Senator Landrieu. Both allegations proved 
false after petitioner sought a court order for death and incompetency 
records--which yielded nothing--and after an Orleans Parish official 
revealed that no precinct had turned out at more than 82 percent and 
that 8 of the top 10 precincts had been majority-white and supported 
Jenkins in the election.
  On November 14, 1996, Jenkins then brought a State law election 
challenge, making no mention of dead or incompetent voters or 
abnormally high turnouts. Instead, he alleged that so-called precinct 
audits prepared by volunteers from election records--which themselves 
were produced under court order--yielded thousands of phantom votes and 
mismatched signatures on election documents, plus evidence of improper 
assistance by poll workers. Jenkins dismissed his own suit, citing an 
inability to gather sufficient evidence--despite the judge's offer to 
extend the statutory deadline for filing an amended complaint.
  On December 5, 1996, Jenkins filed a contest petition with the 
Senate--which he then amended on December 17--in which he restated his 
allegations of phantom voting and mismatched signatures, adding a 
serious of sensational allegations of vote buying, multiple voting, 
fraudulent voter registration and other election fraud, as well as a 
laundry list of other complaints including vote hauling, malfunctioning 
voting machines, failure of poll workers to identify voters, and 
campaign finance violations. After Senator Landrieu responded on 
January 17, 1997, Mr. Jenkins filed a response on February 7, 1997, 
reiterating his earlier allegations and presenting more supporting 
material to the committee. Eventually, Mr. Jenkins' submissions to this 
committee totaled over 9,000 pages. Key portions of this material were 
blacked out by Jenkins to obscure the names of individuals claiming to 
have participated in or having witnessed fraud on election day.
  In response to these extensive submissions, the Rules Committee 
retained two outside counsels to wade through the material and make a 
recommendation to the committee regarding the sufficiency of the 
petition. On April 8, 1997, counsel presented the committee with a 
report recommending dismissal of the bulk of Jenkins' allegations, with 
counsel to conduct a limited investigation into the most sensational 
allegations of vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voter 
registration. On April 15, 1997, Mr. Jenkins testified against the 
bipartisan report, claiming that it would result in the committee 
overlooking or ignoring serious evidence of fraud and irregularity in 
the November 1996 election.
  On April 17, the Rules Committee--on a party-line vote--rejected the 
counsels' report and instead initiated a wide-ranging investigation. 
Although the committee Democrats disagreed strenuously with the 
decision to open up the scope of the investigation, we agreed to 
continue to participate in a bipartisan investigation.
  Beginning the next week, our outside counsel met with the majority's 
choice of outside counsel, and together they drafted a protocol not 
only to guide our investigation but to serve as a basis for the detail 
of FBI agents and GAO personnel to the committee on a nonpartisan 
basis. The agents were especially important, because Mr. Jenkins 
refused to turn over his documents to the committee or our outside 
counsel--including the crucial names of his fraud witnesses--until he 
was assured that they would be delivered to FBI agents detailed to the 
committee.
  On May 12, the majority and minority chief counsels traveled to New 
Orleans to select space in the Federal building to serve as temporary 
committee office space. Chairman Warner subsequently requested a 60-day 
lease of the space which expires on July 31.
  On May 13, committee staff were joined in Louisiana by members of 
both the majority and minority outside counsel teams. The group 
conducted interviews with the Governor, the leadership of the Louisiana 
Legislature, the secretary of state, the commissioner of elections, and 
the State district attorney for East Baton Rouge. It was during these 
interviews that the

[[Page S7860]]

then-lead attorney, Richard Cullen, advised that the 45-day 
investigative period began that day.
  During the week of May 19, with the concurrence of committee 
Democrats, Chairman Warner issued over 130 subpoenas to Louisiana 
election officials. The vast majority of the subpoenas were answered in 
a timely manner.
  On May 30, 1997, again with concurrence of committee Democrats, 
Chairman Warner issued subpoenas to political committees affiliated 
with both Senator Landrieu and Mr. Jenkins. Senator Landrieu delivered 
her documents on June 3, the deadline for delivery in New Orleans, but 
Mr. Jenkins--despite having months to prepare documents in support of a 
case brought at his behest--sought and received an extension until 
Monday, June 9.
  Meanwhile, GAO evaluators detailed to the committee had begun work on 
June 2, 1997, reviewing petitioner's allegations of the existence of 
more than 7,400 so-called phantom votes in the November 1996 Louisiana 
senate election. Included in the materials Mr. Jenkins submitted on 
June 9 was a substantial revision of the phantom vote totals downward 
to just over 5,700 votes--less than the margin of difference in the 
November election. Nevertheless, Mr. Jenkins continued to express the 
belief that upon further scrutiny, the election records would yield 
enough phantom votes to more than make up the difference. As has been 
widely reported, we now know from the GAO evaluators detailed to the 
committee that this is not true. In fact, GAO detailees have concluded 
that further investigation of the allegations they have reviewed to 
date would be unwarranted.
  Back in New Orleans, investigators were interviewing individuals 
named in the unredacted materials finally provided to the committee by 
Mr. Jenkins on June 9. Within a week, a disturbing pattern emerged. Not 
only were the allegations of fraud untrue, the witnesses revealed that 
they had been paid by agents of the petitioner to tell their stories.
  Subsequently, on June 20, committee investigators discovered that at 
least one of these witnesses had been threatened, by agents of Mr. 
Jenkins, and told to reaffirm their original stories of fraud. For his 
part, Mr. Jenkins denies paying any witness and claims no knowledge of 
any payments by his agents for testimony.
  Once I learned that the only evidence of election fraud in this 
matter was clearly false and purchased by agents of Mr. Jenkins, I 
decided that I could not, in good conscience, continue Democratic 
participation in the joint investigation. On June 23 I advised Chairman 
Warner of my concerns. On June 25, the committee Democrats announced 
our withdrawal from the investigation.
  On that same day, June 25, I asked the U.S. Department of Justice to 
investigate whether the witnesses were threatened in violation of 
Federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1505, which prohibits obstruction of a 
Senate investigation.
  It is my understanding that Chairman Warner subsequently made a 
similar referral to the Republican district attorney for East Baton 
Rouge Parish, Mr. Doug Moreau, who has scheduled interviews with both 
the witnesses and the agents of Mr. Jenkins who allegedly paid them to 
lie. According to press reports, Mr. Moreau and his staff are also 
currently reviewing allegations that poll workers may not have followed 
the Louisiana Election Code to the letter. Mr. Jenkins has said that he 
supports these parallel investigations, but believes that the Rules 
Committee should continue its probe as well.
  I should add that when committee staff and the two teams of outside 
counsel met with Mr. Moreau on May 13, he advised them that his office 
had neither the resources nor the expertise to conduct a full-scale 
investigation of alleged election fraud that may have occurred in the 
1996 Senate election fraud that may have occurred in the 1996 Senate 
election. Mr. Moreau was also reluctant to state unequivocally that his 
office, located in Baton Rouge, had jurisdiction over alleged criminal 
activity in New Orleans Parish. And yet, that is exactly what Chairman 
Warner has requested Mr. Moreau to investigate.

  Based upon the review of evidence to date, it is unfair for 
petitioner or anyone else to claim that Democrats want to kill this 
probe prematurely. This case has consumed over 7 months, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars--not to mention hundreds of thousands more in the 
parties' legal fees, a portion of which they are customarily reimbursed 
by the Senate--and countless hours of staff time. After all this 
expenditure, the investigation has produced no evidence--none at all--
that would support continued investigation, let alone action by the 
Senate to overturn the election.
  Finally, in the interest of fairness I believe we should remember our 
colleague Senator Landrieu, who has faithfully continued serving the 
people of Louisiana while patiently enduring countless allegations and 
months of uncertainty in order for the Rules Committee to pursue each 
and every one of Mr. Jenkins' charges--none of which have produced a 
shred of credible evidence.
  As has been widely reported, I am currently involved in negotiations 
with Chairman Warner and other members of his caucus regarding the 
appropriate way to close this investigation in an orderly fashion. 
Whatever resolution we reach on this issue should, in my opinion, 
first, acknowledge that the investigation to date has produced no 
evidence of any fraud, error, or irregularity in the 1996 Louisiana 
Senate election, and second, set a fixed, firm date on which the Rules 
Committee will meet to vote on whether to terminate the investigation 
and dismiss the petition of Mr. Jenkins.
  I join my entire Caucus in expressing our full and complete support 
for our colleague, Senator Mary Landrieu, and call on Chairman Warner 
and members of the majority to end this investigation and remove the 
unjustified cloud of doubt overshadowing Senator Landrieu and the 
elected officials and good people of Louisiana.

                          ____________________