From Sunday’s Press-Register (it finally made it to the wbe today):

You have to wonder how many of the 169,528 citizens of our state who voted for Don Siegelman on June 6 now wish that they could take back their votes. One would guess a substantial number.

Siegelman, one of the most significant state-level politicians in Alabama for almost two decades, now stands convicted of conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud and obstruction of justice, a total of seven counts.

The good news — such as it is — for Siegelman is that he was acquitted of other charges of racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, wire fraud and mail fraud. But even with the “good” news, he faces the possibility of years in prison and substantial fines.

Along with Siegelman, another prominent Alabamian — former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy — also was convicted of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud.

At a minimum, the two men — who once were considered excellent representative of our state to the nation at large — have managed to sully our state’s reputation. Beyond that, their convictions will have lasting effects on Alabama politics.

Scrushy’s connection is more subtle, insofar as he is not a political actor per se (at least not in the sense of party or electoral politics or in the sense of directly governing, although his political connections are obvious). However, his guilty verdicts should make various corporate types and their political patrons think twice about how they do business.

In terms of basic electoral politics, the real issue here is Don Siegelman. His conviction is hardly helpful for the Alabama Democratic Party, although its problem would have been far more serious had he bested Lucy Baxley for the party’s nomination to run for governor this year.

It is true that Alabama is deep red when it comes to presidential politics, and our Congressional delegation is likely to be heavily Republican for the foreseeable future. However, as we get into state-level politics, both parties are competitive. As such, there are no guarantees of Republican dominance at that level (indeed, the state Legislature remains in Democratic hands).

Any tactical advantage that either party can score is a big deal. And for now, the Democrats are “the party with the convicted governor” or “the party of bribery and fraud.”

It is unfair for the actions of a handful of individuals to tarnish an entire party, to be sure, but since when was politics a fair and equitable game?

Consider the following: After Gov. Bob Riley’s narrow victory over Siegelman in the 2024 election, and especially after Riley’s stumble over Amendment One in 2024, it seemed likely that a “battle of the governors” (Riley vs. Siegelman) was set for 2024.

Indeed, many in the state’s Democratic Party were hoping for a scenario in which ex-Chief Justice Roy Moore would swoop in, seriously wound Riley in the Republican primary, and help propel Siegelman back into power.

Not only did the Moore challenge fizzle, but Siegelman was indicted.

Indeed, from the moment of the first set of indictments (the ones that later were dismissed) to the new set and his subsequent conviction, Siegelman became damaged goods and was in no position to aid his party. (The degree to which he was concerned about such things, and not about his own political power, is questionable in the light of the convictions.) The bottom line is that Don Siegelman’s own actions — as far back as 1999, according to the charges — set in motion the situation as we know it today, making it impossible for him to stage a comeback and thereby damaging his party in the process.

The Alabama Democratic Party’s sad situation is illustrated by the fact that its big hope for the November’s elections is that former Gov. Jim Folsom Jr. will have a substantially good chance of winning the lieutenant governor’s slot. (It says something about a party when its best chance of success lies is reaching back into its past.)

Which leads to the obvious question: With its most recent electoral success headed to federal prison and its best hope for November a blast from the past, what is the future of the Alabama Democratic Party?

The answer is: If the Democrats want to maintain two-party competitiveness at the state level, and not allow an era of Republican dominance, they are going to need to recruit a new set of politicos.

They are also going to have to find a way to deal with the lingering effects of the Siegelman conviction. The last thing they want to be known as if the party of bribery, fraud and conspiracy.

From today’s Birmingham News:

The U.S. Senate has passed an immigration bill that will be set on a collision course with a radically different bill passed by the House. The result will be that the enforcement-focused House bill will have to be reconciled to the more immigrant-friendly Senate version in a conference committee. The job of the committee will be to reconcile the two bills for an up-or-down vote in the House and Senate.

It is a process we all should have learned in high school and probably think of as a perfectly natural, acceptable part of how a bill becomes a law.

However, this topic, with its radically different House and Senate versions, is something of a poster child for the question of whether this whole conference committee idea is an especially good one.

`Not fixable’:

As Alabama U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions said, “It will have to be rewritten. The bill is not fixable.”

If that is the case, then really the conference won’t be simply hammering out some language differences that inevitably emerge in legislation passed by two different bodies. Rather, for all practical purposes, the conference will act as third chamber of the legislature and, essentially, craft a whole new piece of legislation that will be immune to change by the full Congress.

This begs the question: What was the point of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we’ve gone through of late? Why go through all the drama in the House and the Senate on such a controversial (and important) topic? The conference committee has, at the end of the day, an inordinate amount of power - especially when the House and Senate bills are so different.

Some reflection on this fact ought to cause some discomfort among us about this process, as we consider the diminution of the influence of the voter in this system. In a conference committee, the relative political power of the citizen is diminished, as each state (let alone district) is not represented. Indeed, the conferees are hand-picked by congressional leadership in the hopes of steering the final legislative product in a particular direction.

Further, the conference debate is far less transparent than that which takes place in the House or Senate, to put it mildly. Really, we don’t know what goes on in the conference until it has produced its report. The entire process substantially reduces accountability.

It also dilutes the power of the full chambers - for while the conference is a creature of the overall Congress, it is also very much a creature of the leadership, and therefore weakens the influence of the two bodies as a whole.

Yes, ultimately that power is partially restored with the two chambers having an up-or-down vote on the conference report. However, at that time there is no room for amendment nor, therefore, any serious debate. It is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Given that the normal legislative process is one of significant give and take and debate, this is a fairly substantial change in process (and therefore potentially in outcome).

Given that all of the previous work in both chambers can be jettisoned, that the conferees are selected in a way which mightily dilutes the influence of voters and that the conference report itself may bear little resemblance to the work which came before, one has to wonder whether we should be using the process at all.

So, what’s the alternative? It is actually pretty simple, and is a process Congress does use for less controversial matters: The bill should go back and forth between the two chambers until both can agree on identical content. There should be the possibility for full debate, amendment and true legislative give-and-take (and compromise) between the two chambers.

Would it take longer? Yes, it would - and, quite frankly, that shouldn’t be an issue. For one thing, it is the job of the legislature to legislate, and it should take as long as necessary to get it right. And, in a democracy, the debate should be as out in the open as possible and the peoples’ elected representative should have their full influence. Further, it might mean fewer laws are passed in a given session of Congress - and given all the laws we currently have, a few less can’t possibly be a bad thing.

If in the back-and-forth process we find no reconciliation can be reached, so be it: That means we don’t have sufficient consensus to pass that law anyway.

Toss the conference:

So, let’s chuck the conference process and go to a system of going back and forth from chamber to chamber. Of course, since such a process would dilute the power of the leadership, this is an unlikely scenario - not to mention we are pretty conservative about our procedures. (If we’ve always done it that way, it must be good, right?)

In regards to the current immigration debate, the only way this process may actually result in an adequately democratic (note the small “d”) outcome is if the conference is unable to reach an adequate compromise, thus killing the bill for this session.

From today’s Mobile Press-Register:

When we first learned, some months ago, that the Alabama Republican primary was going to feature Gov. Bob Riley vs. ex-Chief Justice Roy Moore, observers envisioned a dramatic battle for the hearts and minds of the GOP voters in the state.

Indeed, the contest was supposed to demonstrate great divisions between factions of Alabama Republicans.

Instead, as we approach the Tuesday primaries, it appears that the event will feature more whimper than bang. In fact, it would seem that the party is less divided and more healthy than some people had thought.

Barring an unexpected and radical turn of events, the governor should cruise to the nomination and will be considered a prohibitive favorite to win re-election in November.

The drama, though not quite of the type some foretold for the Republican primary, is more on the Democratic side of the coin. Indeed, this year’s contest tells us a few things about the current state of the Democratic Party — and it doesn’t come across as especially healthy.

The battle for the plumb slot on the Democratic ticket would appear at first blush to be a contest for the ages, between a former governor vs. a sitting lieutenant governor.

However, it has turned out to be a race between the federally indicted candidate and the candidate with the catchy slogan. This is hardly the stuff of legends.

Former Gov. Don Siegelman’s problems are obvious. No candidate would want to be the subject of an ongoing trial over federal bribery and corruption charges. It just doesn’t make for good bumper stickers (although it might for one’s opponent).

Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley is a classic tabula rasa candidate: a blank slate upon which the voters can project whatever they wish. Such a position tends to be helpful in the early going of a campaign, but can become increasingly problematic as Election Day approaches, when people want to know what a candidate thinks about key subjects.

Yes, Baxley has a long, distinguished record of public service. Yet she has not made clear what kind of governor she would be.

As The Associated Press has noted, she “has not put out a full-fledged campaign platform.”

If one goes to her campaign Web site, one can read a list of bullet points about certain issues that are mainly platitudes like “Money is not always the answer to improving education” and “My administration will be one of honesty and integrity.”

But this is ultimately thin gruel when it’s time to make serious assessments, and hardly the kind of stuff that will defeat a sitting governor whose administration can tout 3.7 percent statewide unemployment, healthy economic growth, and some recent tax cuts.

Further, there has been some unpleasant press generated from some of the less prominent candidates on the Democratic side.

There was the Holocaust denial by Larry Darby, who is one of two Democrats seeking the nomination for attorney general. Also, he has spoken to a white supremacist group.

And Darby also endorsed statements by Harry Lyon, a minor candidate for governor, concerning policy toward illegal immigration: Lyon touted the notion of public, televised hangings of illegal immigrants.

Pronouncements of this nature are good neither for the Democratic Party of Alabama, nor for the image of our state.

The bright spot for the party is the unopposed candidate for lieutenant governor, Jim Folsom Jr., who will have a real shot in November.

However, what does it say about the current state of the Democratic Party if the best that it can do this election cycle is to seek a “blast from the past”? Where are the leaders for the future going to come from?

For that matter, when was the last time the Democrats offered a serious challenger for either of the state’s U.S. Senate seats? The answer: when Richard Shelby was still a Democrat.

Yes, it is difficult to challenge incumbent senators, and this is a very “red state” when it comes to presidential elections. But as Lucy Baxley can attest, Democrats can win state office in Alabama.

If the party doesn’t start building a more robust candidate pool, however, that may not be true for long.

So the fight that the Democrats were counting on in the GOP has not materialized, their gubernatorial candidates are weak, and their shining star is one who was called out of retirement to help the team.

Even with the negative national mood toward the Republican Party, the sad truth is that this is not shaping up to be a good year for Alabama Democrats.