Some question whether lawmaker trying Waters can be impartial

A jury of her peers will decide whether Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
violated House ethics rules, but some are questioning the ability of
at least one of the members to remain impartial.

Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), who sits on the adjudicatory panel that
will weigh the allegations against Waters late this month, won
reelection by just 600 votes, according to The Associated Press. His
opponent, Andy Barr, is refusing to concede and has asked for a
recanvass.

{mosads}If Chandler wins, it would be by a razor-thin margin in an
increasingly red district, and if he loses, watchdogs argue, he likely
would be focused on looking for his next job, scenarios fraught with
conflicts of interest and political implications.

After such a hard-fought election in a majority-Republican state, some
Democrats privately worry that Chandler may want to prove
that he is capable of taking a hard stance against a member of his own
party and judge Waters more severely than he would in the middle of a
term, when political influences are less powerful.

“I have several objections,” said Charles Tiefer, a professor at the
University of Baltimore School of Law who served in the House and
Senate general counsel’s office. “The very reason that the lame-duck
was adopted in this institution is because members are relatively
easily influenced during that time in ways that members during the two
years before the election are not.”

The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1932,
truncated the period after an election, before members were sworn in
for a new legislative session. Early in the nation’s history, with
transportation to and from the Capitol slow, long lame ducks were the
norm. In fact, once the November election was established, it was more
than a year before newly elected lawmakers met.

Tiefer also mentioned the outside chance of the House Administration
Committee determining the results of Chandler’s election. Such a turn
of events is rare. The last time it occurred was in Rep. Loretta
Sanchez’s (D-Calif.) initial race for Congress against then-Rep. Bob
Dornan (R-Calif.). She won by 984 votes, but Dornan charged voter
fraud and used the privileges afforded to former members to appear on
the House floor to call for a special election. In February 1998, the
House Administration Committee upheld Sanchez’s victory.

“The prospect of that might also influence his role in deliberations,”
Tiefer said.

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, however, disagrees, arguing that the
House ethics process is not akin to a legal proceeding in which
attorneys for both sides can argue for and against jury members based
on race, bias and other traits.

“He’s still a member of Congress until January and it’s his obligation
to continue serving on this adjudicatory committee until he is no
longer a member.

“This not a comparable situation,” Holman continued. “In a criminal jury
situation you don’t have members presiding over themselves … this is not
grounds for his recusal or disqualification.”

The stakes are high for Waters. Democrats are speculating that Rep.
Barney Frank (Mass.), the top Democrat on the powerful Financial
Services Committee, could move over to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development after losing his chairmanship or in a few years.
Waters is next in line to take over the ranking spot, but any serious
ethics punishment could prevent her from ascending. It would take just
one Democrat on the adjudicatory panel to side with all four
Republicans to move forward with a reprimand.

Other members of the adjudicatory committee handily won reelection.
With the exception of Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the
Congressional Black Caucus along with Waters, her Democratic allies
are concerned that the other members of the panel will not be
particularly favorable toward her.

The other members of the panel are: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who
chairs the ethics committee, as well as Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) ,who
won her election with 59 percent of the vote and represents Tampa,
which is known for its many retirees, and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.),
the sole House member of a state whose population is only 1 percent
black, compared to the national average of nearly 13 percent.