Do congressional Republicans still believe in a colorblind Constitution and equality before the law? It's hard to know after their schizophrenic performance on racial preferences last week.
First the good news. At least nine Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee appear to have held firm in opposition to Bill Lann Lee, the Clinton administration's nominee to become assistant attorney general for civil rights. Lee's constitutional understanding of civil-rights law is well outside the mainstream and runs contrary to a series of court decisions over the past few years that have consistently struck down an array of racial- preference programs. Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch led the charge, delivering a stinging indictment of Lee's views as "exceedingly narrow and violative of the court's holdings."
The bad news comes from the House, where the Judiciary Committee last Thursday killed Rep. Charles Canady's bill outlawing race and gender preferences in federal programs. Republican George Gekas of Pennsylvania said voting on the Canady bill would "hinder the achievement of the ideas espoused by one of our nation's greatest presidents," Abraham Lincoln. Indiana Republicans Steve Buyer and Edward Pease agreed. Even Rep. Elton Gallegly of California, one of the bill's cosponsors, bailed out.
How did this happen? The day before, everything seemed to be going smoothly; House majority leader Dick Armey, apparently overcoming private doubts about the measure, had even given Canady a statement of endorsement. But at a Wednesday meeting of the entire Republican conference, none other than Dick Armey rose to urge that the vote on Canady's bill be canceled. That was all the cover nervous-nellie Republicans on the committee needed the following day.
The Canady measure is dead in Congress for the rest of this year. Republican consistency isn't in much better shape.