Editorials
Friday, February 13, 1998CASEY Martin's court victory allowing him to compete in professional golf tournaments while riding in a cart was as predictable as a six-inch putt. Federal Judge Thomas Coffin already had ruled that his fellow Oregonian could drive his cart temporarily on the PGA-sanctioned Nike Tour while awaiting trial on whether the Americans with Disabilities Act entitled him permanent transportation on PGA fairways. Coffin's ruling that he can keep on riding was a gimme. Government meddles
with rules of sportsMartin suffers from a painful circulatory ailment affecting his lower right leg to a degree that makes walking 18 holes impossible. Using a cart in this year's first Nike tournament, Martin's golfing skills, including 300-yard drives, won him the championship. The former Stanford teammate of Tiger Woods definitely has the shot-making ability of touring professionals.
The PGA Tour opposed exempting Martin from a rule banning players' use of carts. The tour contended -- and numerous pros agreed -- that fatigue from walking the distance is an essential ingredient of the game. They maintained that allowing Martin to use a cart would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition. Indeed, fatigue is a factor in professional golf, and that will become glaringly clear at the next tournament beset by a rain delay, requiring some golfers to stride as many as 36 holes in a day in humid weather while Martin rides.
The judge's ruling is a popular one. Martin's golfing prowess and the court battle have risen him from sympathetic consideration to heroic stature. The Nike sporting goods company has even paid Martin for an endorsement and uses him in its current "I Can" advertising campaign. Despite the public-relations nightmare created by Martin's lawsuit, the PGA Tour is expected to appeal the decision.
Professional golfers are wondering what sort of ailment will qualify others in their ranks for drivers' licenses. And concerns are raised about government rewriting the rules of professional sports in general. Martin's extraordinary disability and the particularities of golf as a sport make comparable situations in other sports difficult to imagine -- but lawyers have a great deal of imagination.
It would be foolish to ignore the unfortunate likelihood that the ruling, if upheld on appeal, will be used as a legal precedent on other playing fields, unless courts at some point correctly declare such interference to be out of bounds.
ATTORNEY General Janet Reno had little choice but to request yet another independent counsel investigation. The latest case involves the Interior Department's rejection of an Indian casino project in Wisconsin, which was opposed by rival Indian groups that contributed heavily to the Democratic Party. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit has repeatedly denied playing a role in the casino's rejection, but contrary reports warrant an independent inquiry. Babbitt investigation
Interior officials rejected the casino proposal by the Chippewa tribe in 1995, but only after rival tribes hired the services of Patrick O'Connor, a high-powered Democratic lobbyist with important White House contacts. The next year those tribes, whose gambling enterprises might have lost business to the Chippewas, gave at least $286,000 to the Democratic Party.
Babbitt has maintained that the casino project was evaluated on its merits and without regard to any forthcoming campaign contributions. But a lawyer who lobbied on behalf of the Chippewa tribe said Babbitt told him of a concerted lobbying effort to kill the project. The lobbyist said Babbitt asked him at one point if he knew how much the rival tribes had contributed to the Democrats.
The request for an independent prosecutor -- to inquire into whether Babbitt lied to Congress about the casino matter -- will be the fourth to investigate Clinton cabinet members. Reno's request comes at a time when the White House is absorbed with the sex-scandal inquiries by independent counsel Kenneth Starr.
Republicans praised the attorney general's action in the Babbitt inquiry, saying it would allow for a larger examination of Democratic fund-raising activities, such as whether the Chinese government tried to influence the U.S. political process. But the scope of the probe has yet to be determined.
Reno suggests the Babbitt independent counsel may coordinate any broad campaign-finance investigative activities with her department. However, the first indictments in the Justice Department's own campaign finance investigation indicate that turning over the entire campaign-finance probe to an independent counsel is unnecessary at this time.
CITY Prosecutor Peter Carlisle has been a proponent of open courtrooms, so his suggestion that complainants in criminal cases not be photographed is puzzling. Supreme Court rules allow judges to disallow photographs or television coverage of some witnesses needing special protection, but Carlisle favors extending a ban to all complainants. Courtroom photos
Judges can prohibit photographers from focusing their lenses on alleged victims of sexual assault, minors, witnesses whose safety could be in jeopardy or witnesses who might disclose trade secrets. Carlisle endorsed a proposal in the Senate Judiciary Committee to prohibit photography of alleged domestic violence victims and went further in favoring a similar blackout for all complainants.
Carlisle is correct in saying that testifying in court can be terrifying. That can be as true for the accused as for the accuser. Youths and complainants in sexual-assault cases may need special consideration, but most other witnesses in criminal cases deserve equal treatment not only from the bench but in the media. Any shield from media coverage should be an exception instead of standard practice for certain classes of witnesses.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
