[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7108-S7110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Thomas Farr

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Ron Chernow is well known as a historian 
and prolific writer who has written biographies of some of the most 
amazing people who have lived in our country. One, of course, is on the 
Founding Father, George Washington, and another which received acclaim 
even on Broadway in New York is the well-known biography of Alexander 
Hamilton, which inspired Mr. Miranda to write a musical, which is 
probably the most successful musical of our time.
  Mr. Chernow has also written another book, which I am working my way 
through very carefully, the biography of Ulysses Grant. It is about 900 
pages long. It is a heavy book to carry

[[Page S7109]]

from one living space to another as a U.S. Senator but well worth the 
effort. It tells the story of this man who came to lead the Union Army 
to victory in the Civil War and ultimately became President of the 
United States. As I have read this biography of Ulysses S. Grant, I 
couldn't help but be struck by the fact that one issue emerged after 
the Civil War, which was probably one of the most challenging of all, 
the issue about the right of African Americans to vote in the South 
after the Civil War--the so-called period of Reconstruction.
  I also commend to those who are interested in the issue this book by 
Carol Anderson, entitled ``One Person, No Vote.'' Carol Anderson is a 
professor at Emory in Atlanta, GA. She wrote an earlier book, which I 
also recommend, called ``White Rage.'' This book, ``One Person, No 
Vote,'' really tries to describe throughout history, particularly after 
the Civil War, efforts at voter suppression and their impact on our 
democracy.
  Professor Anderson was kind enough to ask me to write the forward to 
this book, which I was happy to do. I am happy to read this book as 
well because it went into the detail about what happened after the end 
of the Civil War, when African Americans were legally and 
constitutionally declared to be citizens of the United States and then 
set out to exercise their right to vote. Initially, there was some 
success, but over time the White population in the South started 
suppressing that right to vote, passing laws that demanded literacy 
tests of those who would show up to vote, constitutional tests, poll 
taxes, and the like. Over time, it dramatically diminished the African-
American vote in the South, and that diminishment led many Blacks to 
pick up and leave in the great migration north. Their departure from 
the South to the North was to the benefit of States like Illinois, 
where many thousands came to find work and an opportunity to exercise 
their own freedom, which they thought had been won by the Civil War.
  How important is this right to vote? Well, in the words of John 
Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, at his hearing in 
2005, he said that the right to vote is ``preservative of all other 
rights''--preservative of all other rights. It is that fundamental to 
our democracy that we allow those who are eligible to step forward and 
to express their will when an election is called and choose the 
candidates of their choice.
  Over the period of time after the end of the Civil War, there were 
extraordinary efforts taken to suppress the right of African Americans 
to vote. I say, with some embarrassment but in reality, those were 
largely promulgated by people who described themselves as Democrats in 
those days. They were the ones largely in control of the political 
infrastructure of the South who did their best to limit the right of 
Blacks to participate.
  One of the noteworthy events in this history occurred in 1890 in 
Mississippi, when they passed the Mississippi Plan. In Carol Anderson's 
words, ``a dizzying array of poll taxes, literacy tests, understanding 
clauses, newfangled voter registration rules, and `good character' 
clauses--all intentionally racially discriminatory but dressed up in 
the genteel garb of bringing `integrity' to the voting booth. This 
feigned legal innocence was legislative evil genius.''
  She goes on to explain how the so-called Mississippi Plan became a 
template for other Southern States to try to find ways to pass local 
and State laws making it increasingly difficult for individuals to 
vote, particularly African Americans and people who did not have great 
wealth. It was a success for many years, and the participation of Black 
voters diminished dramatically as a result of it.
  I know this has sounded like a history lesson to this moment, and it 
would be but for the fact that we are facing this issue again in a vote 
we will face this week in the U.S. Senate.
  There is a nominee for the Federal Court in the Eastern District of 
North Carolina named Thomas Farr. Mr. Farr's participation in voter 
suppression is well documented. In fact, the Congressional Black Caucus 
has described Mr. Farr as ``the preeminent attorney for North Carolina 
Republicans seeking to curtail the voting rights of people of color.''
  Mr. Farr worked as legal counsel for the 1990 campaign of Senator 
Jesse Helms. That campaign engaged in well-documented, deeply 
disturbing tactics aimed at suppressing the Black vote in North 
Carolina.
  As an example, the Helms campaign sent out over 100,000 postcards to 
mainly African-American voters warning that they might be ineligible to 
vote for residency reasons. The postcards from the Helms campaign, 
which Mr. Farr worked on as legal counsel, warned that the Black 
recipients might be arrested for voter fraud if they came to the polls 
to vote.
  Mr. Farr initially told the Judiciary Committee, in which I serve, 
that he did not participate in any campaign meetings in which this 
mailing was discussed. However, news reports then indicated that Mr. 
Farr did, in fact, participate in an October 1990 meeting that included 
discussion about mailings that challenged voters' residency.
  Mr. Farr, this nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Federal 
court in North Carolina, later admitted participating in the meeting, 
despite what he had said earlier. A former Justice Department attorney 
told the Raleigh News & Observer in 2009 that Mr. Farr ``was certainly 
involved in the scheme as it was being developed.''
  Mr. Farr also represented North Carolina in litigation over a 
notorious voter suppression law that the Fourth Circuit struck down in 
2016. So his experience in this earlier Helms campaign was not confined 
when it came to voter suppression; by 2016 he was at it again. The 
Fourth Circuit found that the law--which Mr. Farr defended in court--
had ``target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision'' and 
that the legislature had ``enacted . . . the law with discriminatory 
intent.''
  That was the very law that Mr. Farr defended before the court.
  This man, who now seeks this lifetime appointment to the Federal 
bench, has not just a history but a pattern of voter suppression. This 
phrase--that the law he was defending ``target[ed] African Americans 
with almost surgical precision''--has probably been repeated more than 
any I can remember in recent memory on this issue.
  Additionally, Mr. Farr represented North Carolina in litigation 
related to racial gerrymandering and violations of the National Voter 
Registration Act.
  It is particularly troubling that Mr. Farr has been nominated for a 
judgeship that, as the minority leader mentioned earlier, was denied 
during the Obama administration when they submitted two African 
American nominees. The Republican Senators from North Carolina kept the 
seat vacant and would not allow an African American to fill it. Though 
President Obama tried twice, they objected to the nominees. Republicans 
held this seat vacant for years, clearly with the intention to fill it 
with someone like Mr. Farr.
  Let me quote what the Reverend William J. Barber II, a prominent 
civil rights leader in North Carolina, wrote about Thomas Farr in TIME 
magazine recently:

       I know Farr. I know what he's done, what he stands for and 
     just how detrimental he will be to his constituents if 
     confirmed.

  There are many conservative lawyers in North Carolina who could serve 
as Federal judge who do not have the blemished record of advocacy for 
voter suppression that Mr. Farr brings to the Senate. As Reverend 
Barber wrote in TIME magazine: ``Being a conservative is not the same 
thing as spending almost 40 years fighting to block full citizenship 
for all Americans.''
  Given his decades-long history of supporting and defending efforts to 
restrict the right to vote, I must oppose Mr. Farr's nomination.
  I must ask: In this moment in time in the 21st century, as we still 
battle over the issues that divided this Nation during the Civil War, 
why would this Senate stand and give Mr. Thomas Farr a lifetime 
appointment to the Federal bench in North Carolina? What does it say 
about the majority in the Senate that we would give this man, with his 
personal history of voter suppression, this opportunity?
  The reality is this, and it is a grim reality: I believe the 
Republican Party has decided that demographics are not on their side 
and that the emerging minorities in the United States of America are 
not likely to vote their way. So they have embarked on a national 
program to limit the rights of people to

[[Page S7110]]

vote--a national program that I find disgusting. To think that the Koch 
brothers finance ALEC--the American Legislative Exchange Council--and 
that ALEC promulgates these State laws in an effort to continue to 
suppress the vote carries on a sad and despicable tradition.
  Back in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, it 
was the Democratic Party, which I belong to, that unfortunately was the 
home for many of these bigots and led many efforts of voter 
suppression. Today, sadly, it is the Republican Party--the party of 
Abraham Lincoln--that is trying to suppress the vote of African 
Americans with many overt, covert efforts. The appointment of Thomas 
Farr to fill this vacancy is as overt as can be. We know who he is. We 
know what he believes. We know what he stands for. And we know that if 
he is given this lifetime appointment on the Federal bench, he is 
likely to continue his lifetime history of trying to deny votes to 
those who are African Americans.
  This Chamber that I stand in, with some awe every time I enter it, 
became the Senate legislative Chamber in January of 1859, even before 
the Civil War began. It witnessed not only the departure of the 
southern Senators who were loyal to the Confederacy; it witnessed even 
Union soldiers coming in and camping out here, at times during the 
conflict, when they needed a roof over their heads. It also witnessed 
the battles over reconstruction when the so-called radical Republicans 
were determined to make sure that African Americans would be given a 
fighting chance in the south. It witnessed the impeachment trial of 
Andrew Johnson, and it witnessed many other events that have led us to 
this moment in time in the year 2018.
  Many of the debates that took place on this floor, many of the 
sentiments that were debated back and forth over the decades, continue 
to this day to our generation, to our time, and to our Senate. When we 
bring Thomas Farr for a vote this week in the U.S. Senate, I hope that 
the party of Abraham Lincoln--the Republican Party of the United 
States--will join Democrats in stopping this nomination. Can we send a 
clear message, a bipartisan message from the Senate this week that 
Thomas Farr and the voter suppression in which he has engaged 
throughout his life is as unacceptable today as it was in the dark days 
after the end of the Civil War? That is our responsibility.
  This Senator will be voting no on Thomas Farr.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Oregon.
  (The remarks of Mr. Merkley pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
708 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.