Democrats Vote Today on New Senate Leader : Mitchell, Johnston, Inouye Compete to Replace Byrd in Choice Called Crucial for Party Image

In the wake of what for them was a very disappointing presidential election, Senate Democrats will have a rare opportunity to reshape their party’s image today when they choose a new majority leader to replace Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who is stepping down.

The new leader will be chosen by secret ballot at a private meeting of the 55 Democrats--including eight freshmen--who will serve in the 101st Congress, which convenes next January. The three contenders for the job are Sens. George J. Mitchell of Maine, J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii.

The choice of the new Senate majority leader is being viewed as particularly crucial for the Democratic Party at this juncture, not only because the Republicans have recently won control of the White House for another four years, but also because allegations of wrongdoing against House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) have helped to tarnish the party image.

Visible Symbol

Like the Speaker, the new majority leader will be a visible symbol of the Democratic Party and a key voice in the give-and-take between Congress and President-elect George Bush. Many Democratic senators have expressed a desire to be represented in that capacity by someone who would help them broaden their party’s voter appeal.

“It’s inherent that the majority leader will be called upon to speak for the party,” noted Mitchell, who is the apparent front-runner.

A flinty former judge and one-time aide to former Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Me.), Mitchell, 55, is widely viewed as the best orator of the three candidates and the one most suited to the demands of the television age. As a member of Congress’ Iran-Contra investigating committee, he frequently was called upon to explain the Democrats’ view of the case.

But Johnston, 56, Mitchell’s strongest competitor for the job, contends that he, as a Southern conservative, has the right political profile for the job. “My image is more centrist, and that’s a factor in my favor,” he said. “We’ve got to appeal to middle America.”

Johnston’s strengths also include his reputation as a good deal-maker. Acting on behalf of the elderly retiring Sen. John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Johnston last year was the key player in getting the Senate to enact all 13 bills funding the government before the start of the 1989 fiscal year.

The third candidate, Inouye, 64, is neither conservative nor an accomplished television performer. And while these factors make him the least likely to be chosen, Inouye is perhaps the best known of the three contenders because of his service more than a decade ago on the Senate committee that investigated the Watergate scandal, as well as his chairmanship of the Iran-Contra panel.

One Must Drop Out

None of the three candidates is expected to win on the first ballot, after which the senator with the fewest votes must drop out. Although United Press International reported on Monday that Mitchell appeared to have it “all but sewn up,” Johnston insisted that he is still in contention for a second-ballot victory.

“The race appears to be at this point too close to call between Sen. Mitchell and me on the second ballot and a handful of undecideds will determine it,” Johnston said.

Inouye also continued to maintain that he would win on the second ballot.

Among the undecided Democrats are several freshmen, such as Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). “They’re all saying roughly the same thing,” Lieberman explained. “It comes down to a decision in your gut.”

Fierce Lobbying

While some senators have committed themselves publicly to one of the three candidates, most have kept their preference to themselves, and lobbying by the three candidates has grown fiercely competitive during the last few weeks. In fact, there is evidence that some senators may have committed themselves privately to more than one candidate.

“There must be 75 of us if you add up the promised votes,” said Sen. Alan Dixon (D-Ill.).

The outcome of the election probably will hinge finally on a number of mundane issues that are of no interest to the public, such as the allocation of office space and other perquisites or matters involving the internal operations of the Senate.

Different Image

Nevertheless, each candidate in his campaign has been extremely sensitive to the growing feeling among Democrats that their party needs to adopt a different image if it expects to win control of the White House as well as Congress in future elections.

Byrd, the first senator in history to step down as majority leader before retiring from the Senate, is understood to be stepping aside in response to the desire for a fresh face in the leadership.

The defeat of Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis was seen as a setback for Mitchell because he--like Dukakis--is both a liberal and a Northeasterner. But Mitchell has argued that regional politics should have nothing to do with the choice.

“When Dukakis was ahead in the polls, it was said that if he won, I should not be elected because we couldn’t have two from New England,” Mitchell noted. “Now that he’s lost, it is said that I shouldn’t be elected because we can’t have anybody from New England.”

Loyalty Rating

In fact, according to a study of the records of the three contenders by consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, Mitchell voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 88% of the roll-call votes during the last eight years, making him the candidate for majority leader most in tune with his party. Inouye had an 80% party loyalty rating; Johnston had 61%.

At the same time, although Johnston might help the Democrats improve their appeal to Southern voters, many senators were reluctant to vote for him as majority leader as long as Wright--another oil-state Southerner--is Speaker of the House.

As for Inouye, many senators have been critical of the way that he, as chairman of the Iran-Contra committee, permitted Lt. Col. Oliver L. North to use the hearings as a platform for his conservative Republican views on Contra aid and other matters. He also was embarrassed a year ago when it came to light that he had tucked money into an appropriations bill for a school in France for North African Jews.