Musing on Lame Ducks During Election Day 2002
November 20, 2002
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
This column is being written on Nov. 5 as voting for every seat in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is still going on in most of the nation. The polls have closed in a very few states, but others will be open for hours yet. And the talking heads of the TV networks and cable news organizations, chary from the way they mishandled things in 2000, haven’t even begun to project winners at this hour.
The newsies won’t be able to contain themselves much longer, but at this point there is a distinct possibility that when we go to press with this issue tomorrow, the question of which party will control the Senate in January may not be known. In fact, there is even the possibility that it may not be known until Dec. 7, if a runoff is needed to decide the Senate race in Louisiana, as seems likely if the Democrats or Republicans are one-seat from control when the other races are decided.
(The morning after this column was written, the major media reported that the Republicans have regained control in the Senate—although some recounts were still likely—and had strengthened their control in the House.)
But here is a subject for additional conjecture, which is one of the prerogatives of writing a column such as this.
Post Nov. 5 Session
Because Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri was not elected to office but has been serving by appointment only, if former Rep. Jim Talent—the Republican candidate—should win in the election in that state, it seems he legally would be able to replace her immediately—for the rest of the current Congress. That would mean that the Republicans and Democrats would be back to a temporary 50-50 split, which with Vice President Dick Cheney’s vote, would give them back immediate control of the Senate.
But hold on; there’s another if. The plane crash death of Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone in Minnesota would appear to give the Republicans another immediate numerical boost. However, Minnesota Gov. Jessie Ventura, an Independent, has just appointed an Independent to fill the vacancy.
It would appear that Dean Barkley—Ventura’s appointment (see related story below) can serve until either: a.) the newly elected Minnesota senator is sworn-in next January, or, b.) the winner of the Nov. 5 election is certified about mid-November. What thinking would prevail, and who would serve when, depends on which lawyers and judges you talk with. If that sounds confusing and unsettled as far as government control goes, it sure beats the way Saddam Hussein and some of his fellow dictators would solve the problem.
Whatever the outcome, we must bear in mind that the 108th Congress didn’t adjourn before the election as they usually do; they recessed.
The main reason for this uncommon, but not altogether unusual, action was that the Senate and House had failed to complete their work on a number of government appropriation bills, the main reasons for their existence. They also failed to complete their work on a number of other measures of importance to the American people, not the least of which is the measure that would create the proposed new Department of Homeland Security.
Too Many Cooks
You would think in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in September 2001, and the obvious failings of many government agencies to function as the people expect, that would have been a key bill that would have been passed or defeated by now. But instead, as often happens in lawmaking, too many cooks spoiled the stew they were brewing.
Both Republicans and Democrats found reason to want to “fix” the Homeland Security proposal. Some were seeking to satisfy different special interest groups, while others wanted to use the bill as a Christmas tree on which they could hang their own ornaments—including some anti-gun measures.
Money and homeland security are just two reasons for the current Congress to return to work sometime after Election Day in what is called a “Lame Duck” session.
It’s called a Lame Duck for several reasons. The first, because it is wounded and incomplete when it takes off; the election may have spelled the end of some political careers in Washington. The second, because a lame duck usually flies unpredictably and doesn’t go very far.
The unpredictable character of Lame Duck sessions is further confused by the previously-mentioned question of which party will be in control of Senate business for a period of days or, at most, weeks—the Republicans or the Democrats. And whether that control will be short-lived or continue into 2003 and 2004.
The way this duck may fly also depends on some of the losers who know they will not be around when the new Congress convenes. There could be members of the Senate and House who might certainly switch the direction of their past voting records by 180 degrees, knowing they have nothing to lose or gain by constancy. There may be a few who believe they want to be remembered in history, even if it is for bad law.
I now include the members of the House in my concerns about the unpredictability of a Lame Duck Congress, because, even though I noted last week that I didn’t think this election would return control of the House to the Democrats, a lot of members will be retiring. They didn’t choose to run for reelection this year, but will be serving for a short period in what remains of the current congressional session.
Critical Issues
With all of the forgoing as preamble, I should remind gunowners and firearms civil rights activists that a number of critical issues could still be in play for the rest of this year no matter how the voting turned out today. Anyone who thought they could take a breather until January has to keep a wary eye on that Lame Duck.
For instance, there is still the question of allowing volunteer, trained pilots of commercial airlines to be armed.
The question of background checks for private non-dealer sales at gun shows, flea markets, shooting matches and even private homes is still pending. Depending on which language is adopted, if any, gun shows as we know them may become a relic of the past, as will most secondary sales and bequests, even to relatives.
There is also the question of establishing a national ballistic imaging database, which was given impetus by the politicians and the media during the recent “Beltway sniper” episode.
Finally, the Lame Duck Congress could rush to cancel the sunset of the Clinton Crime Bill ban of many semi-automatic firearms and high capacity magazines. The fact that the ban accomplished little in the past eight years to reduce crime won’t matter. Reason isn’t valued as much as emotion on Capitol Hill.
And finally, in an uncertain legislative climate, there are a number of other seemingly minor anti-gun options that could come up as amendments to other legislation. If we become lucky, the restoration of funds for processing applications for relief of firearms purchase disability would be one of them. But luck may count some on Election Day; it seldom comes into play during the legislative process.
However, I will close by expressing the hope that all Gun Week readers voted today, and hope that we will all be able to measure those votes on the plus side in the coming weeks and months.
ADDENDUM: While the results of the Nov. 5 federal elections, as reported elsewhere in this issue, may have changed some aspects of the perspectives I have offered, a lot of uncertainty remains. As this issue of Gun Week goes to press the day after the election, the current and future leaders of both houses of Congress have not yet spelled out their immediate agendas. Stay tuned.
Return to Archive Index
