Rep. William “Cash in the Freezer” Jefferson (D-La.), much to the Democrats’ dismay, won re-election fairly easily over the weekend, beating State. Rep. Karen Carter (D) in a closely-watched run-off election. Jefferson, who is under a federal criminal investigation and seems likely to get indicted, managed to parlay disgust with Bush administration into a defense — he argued that the investigation is politically motivated — which apparently did the trick. It is, to be sure, disappointing.
But, what do Dems do about it now? TPM’s David Kurtz suggested the caucus refuse to seat Jefferson.
Undemocratic, you say? The people have spoken? Perhaps. But the people’s elected representatives in the House can democratically say that a member is unfit to serve. Is anyone other than his most compromised defenders seriously arguing that Jefferson is fit to serve?
Refusing to seat Jefferson right off the bat would be as bold a stroke as the introduction of any reform package within the first 100 days, and it would dramatically distinguish this Congress from its sorry predecessor.
That sounds vaguely compelling, at least at first blush. If Dems really want to send a message about a no-nonsense policy when it comes to political corruption, they could simply reject Jefferson before he’s sworn in for another term. It would, to be sure, represent a zero-tolerance approach that would contrast nicely with the last several years of Republican rule in the House.
But, as much as I wanted to see Jefferson lose, and as strongly as I consider Jefferson an embarrassment, the Dems can’t seriously consider this. They have a few options, but refusing the election results isn’t one of them.
For one thing, our system functions with a presumption of innocence. Sure, it looks like Jefferson is as guilty as sin, and sure, we all expect him to go to jail, but that’s a job for law enforcement and the judiciary. The congressional majority can’t decide, with any real legitimacy, to circumvent the process and find Jefferson “guilty enough to ignore election results.”
On a related note, Mark Kleiman noted, “The Constitution makes the House the judge of its own returns, but there’s no doubt Jefferson got the most votes Saturday. There’s no Constitutional authority for refusal to seat someone just because he happens to be a crook.”
But this is not to say that House Dems do nothing. When former Rep. Jim Trafficant (D-Ohio), another obvious crook, won re-election, Dems refused to acknowledge his existence, and wouldn’t give him any committee assignments. There’s no reason Jefferson can’t receive the same treatment.
For that matter, as Kleiman also noted, expulsion should be at the top of the list of possibilities.
[T]here is Constitutional authority to expel a member, by a two-thirds vote. Jefferson, along with several of the not-yet-indicted Abramoff/MZM crooks, ought to be called before the Ethics Committee and asked under oath where the money came from. He would have the right to plead his Fifth Amendment privilege againt self-incrimination, on which the Committee would have the right to draw the appropriate inference and recommend his expulsion.
No, this isn’t a violation of the principle “innocent until proven guilty.” The question isn’t criminal guilt, it’s fitness to serve in the House. Whether Jefferson, Doolittle, et al. go to prison is up to the prosecutors and the courts. Whether they continue to make our laws is up to the House of Representatives.
Sounds good to me. I have no idea what the voters in Louisiana’s 2nd district were thinking, but the sooner Congress disassociates itself with Jefferson, the better.