A new tone in Washington.

More votes were cast in last November's election than in any prior presidential election. In the second month of the new Bush administration, it is only natural that after such a hard-fought race and hotly contested result there is some frustration lingering on both sides of the aisle. However, with a first-ever 50-50 split in the Senate, the two major parties are seeking a new level of bipartisanship.

The result of the split is an even division between Democrats and Republicans on all Senate committees and subcommittees--a kind of power-sharing accord. The split removes the two-vote margin Republicans held on most committees. However, committee chairs will still be Republican.

In the House, the Republicans hold a narrow majority, and the House Republican leadership remains committed to tort "reform." The 2000 Republican platform states:

   Reform of the legal profession is an essential part of court reform.
   Today's litigation practices make a mockery of justice, hinder our
   country's competitiveness in the world market, and, far worse, erode the
   public's trust in the entire judicial process. Avarice among many
   plaintiffs' lawyers has clogged our civil courts, drastically changed the
   practice of medicine, and costs American companies and consumers more than
   $150 billion a year.

Legislation that advances the platform--such as bills to limit products liability, medical malpractice, or class actions--may ultimately be decided in the evenly divided Senate.

Senate committees to watch include the Commerce Committee (jurisdiction over tort liability, insurance, aviation, and maritime issues), which welcomes Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), former trial lawyer Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), and Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.); the Judiciary Committee (jurisdiction over federal courts, class actions, and various liability issues), which now includes Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Richard Durban (D-Ill.); and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (jurisdiction over the long-debated Patients' Bill of Rights), now with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Edwards.

While there has been much talk of bipartisanship, some groups are not willing to abandon their activist roots and are calling for supporters to turn the anger from the 2000 election into action.

Frustration with the election result was evident at a discussion held at the National Press Club two days before George W. Bush's inauguration. The event was sponsored by the consumer-oriented advertising firm Fenton Communications.

"We survived eight years of Ronald Reagan, and we will survive four years of Bush," said Julian Bond, chair of the NAACP and a board member of its National Voter Fund.

Bond launched into the woes of the campaign aftermath, pausing briefly to convey his feelings about a certain cabinet post nomination chosen from "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party."

Bond's words were harsh. The underlying question, however, is a common one: Why, with all the promises of bipartisanship and unity, did Bush nominate a candidate for attorney general who would so sharply divide the nation?

How many Missouri residents could have predicted that voting for Sen. John Ashcroft's (R-Mo.) opponent would help secure Ashcroft's nomination to President Bush's cabinet?

Missouri was one of many states in which African American voter turnout increased for the 2000 election. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch estimated the African American voter turnout was 64 percent. The Washington Post reported on December 23 that the turnout in Missouri was prompted largely by Sen. Ashcroft's opposition to appointing state supreme court justice Ronnie White to a federal district court judgeship and that the turnout was "crucial to Ashcroft's narrow defeat."

The NAACP National Voter Fund spent millions of dollars on a grassroots voter education campaign designed to maximize African American voter turnout. "We were able to turn out an extra million black voters," said Bond.

From this election "disaster," said Bond, "must come opportunity. We are determined to turn this anger into action, if we have the will. And I believe we do."

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo followed Bond to the podium and echoed his themes.

"Progressive policies have suffered a setback," said Cuomo. He said that instead of glossing over the differences between the two major parties, it would be better to emphasize political differences.

"The difference is night and day between conservative and progressive. Hold your ground. We win on our positions when we fight the right way. We speak to a higher standard," he said. That standard, according to Cuomo, is justice: social justice, racial justice, and economic justice.

He said that when he speaks to audiences about justice, no matter where he speaks or to whom, the audience nods in agreement. Cuomo believes people of all political persuasions must be shown that it is possible to make progressive social change that leads to justice for all. "They won't believe if we can't show them it can be done," said Cuomo.

In the weeks before and immediately after his inauguration, President Bush has reached out to members of both parties and has softened his own partisan rhetoric, indicating a willingness to compromise or even pull back from some of his controversial proposals, such as school vouchers.

The election unleashed a wave of pledges for renewed determination. For some that means compromising, for others it means mobilizing. We all will have to wait to see which tactic works best.

Party agenda

In the House, the Republicans hold a narrow majority, and the leadership remains committed to tort `reform.'

Kristin Loiacono is media relations coordinator for ATLA.