A Proper Hearing for Packwood

A group of Oregonians has petitioned the Senate Rules Committee to investigate and overturn Bob Packwood’s reelection last November, on the ground that the veteran Republican senator deceived voters by suppressing information about his alleged personal misconduct.

By falsely answering reporters’ questions about accusations of sexual harassment Packwood, the petitioners claim, engaged in “impermissible interference with the integrity of the electoral process.” In other words by lying to the press Packwood in effect committed electoral fraud, and so should be denied the seat he was elected to for the fifth time.

The Rules Committee, while deferring a formal response, indicated a clear reluctance to accept this line. It’s right to do so. For the committee is being asked to find, first, that had Packwood admitted to the allegations raised by reporters--but not published until 19 days after the voting took place--he probably would have lost the election and, second, that his failure to tell the truth was an act of electoral dishonesty on a level, say, with stuffing ballot boxes.

The first finding can’t be made simply because there’s no way to know how a false statement might have affected the outcome of the election. The second finding won’t be made because no member of the committee--indeed, no politician anywhere--can be comfortable with the idea that a candidate’s pre-election statements may later be used as a standard for judging his or her fitness to hold office. If the committee were to adopt such a view, it would be inviting challenges based on alleged lying to virtually every senatorial election held.

The Ethics Committee will be taking up the actual allegations of sexual harassment and intimidation of his accusers that have been raised against Packwood. If it finds them credible it can move to punish Packwood in any of a number of ways, up to expulsion from the Senate. The ethics panel will be dealing with sworn testimony regarding facts; the Rules Committee was asked to deal basically with inferences. The Packwood case should be decided on facts alone.