Panel Cool to Attempt to Oust Packwood : Senate: Rules Committee is skeptical of argument that election should be overturned because he lied in denying sexual harassment accusations.

Members of the Senate Rules Committee were skeptical Monday of arguments that Sen. Bob Packwood’s 1992 election should be overturned on the grounds that he lied to the press about accusations of sexual harassment and attempted to coerce his accusers into keeping silent.

Committee Chairman Wendell H. Ford (D-Ky.) said the committee will not make a determination of whether it will pursue the case until possibly later this week.

However, the tone of Monday’s hearing indicated that senators are highly reluctant to pursue a case that would take them into setting new standards for serving in the Senate.

The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating accusations by more than 20 women--including former staff members, lobbyists and others--who claim that the Oregon Republican sexually harassed them over the past two decades. That inquiry is focusing largely on whether Packwood’s conduct merits disciplinary action.

Those seeking Packwood’s ouster hope that a second avenue of investigation might be opened by the Rules Committee, which is charged with looking into cases of election fraud. Their argument is that Packwood would have lost the election if voters had known of the sexual harassment allegations.

“Mr. Packwood stole the Nov. 3, 1992, election,” said Katherin A. Meyer, an attorney representing 250 Oregon voters seeking to overturn the election. “He could not have won the Nov. 3 election had he not succeeded in keeping that crucial information from (voters).”

The committee is responsible for reviewing election complaints under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), which provides that each house of Congress “shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.”

However, the types of election fraud cases that have been brought to the Rules Committee generally hinge on such tactics as stuffing ballot boxes. The last time it voted to expel a senator it was because he had donned a Confederate uniform during the Civil War.

“Your request is one that really opens a Pandora’s box,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Meyer.

Feinstein, the only woman on the committee, noted that similar efforts might be aimed at candidates who were accused of making false promises in a campaign or running misleading advertisements.

Feinstein’s apparent reluctance could be a bellwether for the committee. The idea of adding more empathy for women’s issues to the Senate was a major theme of her 1992 campaign, which came in the wake of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s controversial handling of sexual harassment charges against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Republicans on the panel were blunter. “Are we to unseat a senator if he or she votes for a middle-class tax increase after campaigning on a platform of a middle-class tax cut?” Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), another member of the committee, asked in a statement. Dole’s question was a jab at President Clinton, who reversed his campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class.

In her arguments, Meyer accused Packwood of lying to Oregon reporters who asked him shortly before the election about rumors that the Washington Post was looking into reports about his behavior. The Post broke the story of the sexual harassment allegations after Packwood’s narrow reelection.

Meyer also said Packwood, who had been considered a champion of women’s rights issues, had threatened to reveal damaging personal information about his accusers if they made their allegations public.

The initial Washington Post report claimed that 10 women, six of whom agreed to be identified, accused Packwood of making unwanted sexual advances, including fondling and kissing. Subsequently, amid the continuing Ethics Committee investigation, the number of accusers reportedly has grown to more than 20.

Packwood initially denied the allegations, but later apologized and said his actions toward the women “were just plain wrong. I just didn’t get it. I do now.”

Packwood did not appear at the three-hour hearing Monday. He was represented by his attorney, James F. Fitzpatrick, who said the panel “should not get in the business of a post-mortem trial of who said what to whom during a campaign.”

Ford said he believed it would be difficult for the committee to prove that Packwood’s failure to disclose the accusations changed the election result. Although Meyer had cited public opinion polls conducted in the weeks after the eruption of the scandal as evidence that the outcome would have been different, several senators said they were unconvinced that those surveys were a true measure of how voters would have reacted on Election Day.

“I’ve had a lot of experience with polls. I was going to win New Hampshire by 20%,” Dole quipped, referring to the primary where his 1988 presidential campaign fell apart.

The Ethics Committee, which is conducting virtually all its work in secret, has indicated that it hopes to conclude its investigation this summer. The most drastic step available would be a recommendation to expel Packwood from the Senate, a move that would require a two-thirds vote of the entire Senate.