[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7110-S7111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Thomas Farr

  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, a key component of our democracy is access 
to the ballot. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Reynolds v. Sims that 
``the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and 
democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the 
franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other 
basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right 
of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.''
  I always say that your voice is your vote and your vote is your 
voice. In the recent midterm elections, we saw that there are still 
powerful forces in our country willing to go to incredible lengths to 
deny Americans their right to vote. It is indeed outrageous that some 
voters in Georgia had to wait 4 hours to vote, and a candidate for 
Governor was the one responsible for overseeing his own election; that 
Native Americans and their IDs were not accepted at polling places in 
North Dakota; that nearly 20 percent of North Carolina early voting 
locations were closed this year.
  Five years ago, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted 
the Voting Rights Act. Congress is the only body that has authority to 
restore and should therefore be taking steps to restore and strengthen 
the Voting Rights Act and to expand early voting and automatic voter 
registration. Why? Because the more people who can readily participate 
in our democracy, the more our government will be responsive to the 
people we are elected to represent.
  Yet, instead of Congress acting to strengthen access to the ballot, 
the Senate is considering Thomas Farr for a lifetime appointment to the 
District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina--a nominee who 
has consistently and for decades put limits on the ability of Americans 
to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Just look at the facts.
  Mr. Farr actually defended North Carolina's 2013 voting restrictions 
law--a law that would have required photo IDs, which disproportionately 
impacted Black voters. At the same time, they prohibited certain IDs, 
such as student IDs or public employee IDs. This law also reduced same-
day registration and early voting--a law that was so clearly 
unconstitutional that the Fourth Circuit described the law as targeting 
Black voters with ``almost surgical precision.'' The Fourth Circuit 
went on to call it ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has 
seen since the era of Jim Crow.''
  The facts also include that Mr. Farr represented the North Carolina 
Legislature in multiple challenges to its 2011 congressional and 
legislative redistricting. This was an attempt to draw congressional 
boundaries in ways that disadvantaged Black voters for partisan gain. 
Those maps were later struck down as unconstitutional and racially 
discriminatory.
  Mr. Farr has also repeatedly represented powerful employers against 
the rights of workers and customers to be treated equally. For example, 
he represented a rental car company that allegedly imposed additional 
requirements on Black customers. He also represented a pharmaceutical 
company against allegations of gender discrimination, hostile work 
environment, and retaliation.
  To be clear, attorneys are not charged--nor should they be--with the 
views of their clients, but when such a significant part of your 
decades-long record involves defending clients charged with 
discrimination and defending laws that undermine the right to vote, it 
is reasonable to question whether that individual can be a fair and 
impartial judge of similar cases.
  Mr. Farr's public comments raise questions about his judgment as 
well. For instance, he has compared the decision upholding the 
Affordable Care Act to the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions. For a 
reminder, Dred Scott is a case that said African Americans could not be 
citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of 
segregation--both now universally considered shameful decisions. The 
idea that a decision upholding the expansion of healthcare for millions 
of Americans is remotely comparable to these rulings should be utterly 
offensive to anyone who knows anything about America's history. These 
are statements of an ideologue, not someone who understands that their 
interpretation of these rulings should be something that people will, 
if they are not careful, rely on. So these are the statements of an 
ideologue, not an evenhanded and unbiased judge. The people of North 
Carolina deserve better, and let us be clear about who many of these 
people are.

  More than one-quarter of the population covered by the Eastern 
District is Black--nearly 27 percent. Yet there has never been a Black 
Federal judge serving the Eastern District of North Carolina in the 
court's 146-year history.
  In 2013, President Obama nominated Jennifer May-Parker, an assistant 
U.S. attorney and chief of the Appellate Division of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, and she is Black. She was appointed to this 
vacancy--a position Senator Burr had previously recommended her for--
but that nomination was blocked.
  In 2016, President Obama nominated Patricia Timmons-Goodson--a 
justice who served on the North Carolina Supreme Court--who is also 
Black. That nomination was also held up.
  As a result, this is now the longest judicial vacancy in the Federal 
court system. Instead of two highly qualified women, Senate Republicans 
want to fill this vacancy with someone who is anathema to so many of 
our communities and, in particular, communities of color.
  So I would echo the North Carolina NAACP, which said that ``if this 
nomination is confirmed, it represents an historic insult to justice 
and to the people of North Carolina.''
  I know there are folks who might consider the odds of stopping this

[[Page S7111]]

nominee and throw in the towel, but the way I see it, if it is 
something worth fighting for, it is a fight worth having. If it is 
something worth fighting for, it is a fight worth having. This fight 
against Thomas Farr is a fight worth having because Thomas Farr is far 
from what we should accept in a nominee. I know we can do better, and 
we must do better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from South Dakota.