[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S7118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Thomas Farr

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today on two matters. I wish to 
begin by expressing my opposition to the nomination of Thomas Farr to 
the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
  As a Senator from a State with a tradition of high voter turnout--in 
fact, in the last Presidential election, with the highest voter turnout 
in the country--in the election a few weeks ago, nearly 64 percent of 
Minnesota voters cast their ballot. This isn't just registered voters; 
it is eligible voters. We are talking about an issue that, in my State 
and in so many places around the country, is fundamental to our 
democracy--access to the polls. It is the central pillar of our 
democracy. If people can't vote, they can't have a say and we don't 
have a real democracy. It is that simple. That is why I am here to 
voice my opposition to Thomas Farr--because of his long record of 
defending discriminatory voting laws and redistricting plans.
  In North Carolina, Mr. Farr defended one of the most restrictive 
voting laws that we have seen, which, in addition to establishing a 
discriminatory voter ID requirement, eliminated same-day voter 
registration.
  By the way, I have spent a lot of time on this and have a bill to 
institute this across the country. Same-day voter registration is 
really the key. When you look at the top 10 States for voter turnout--
some are red, some are blue, some are purple--what do they have in 
common? They have same-day registration. It makes it easier for people 
to vote. As long as they can prove where they live--with a neighbor, 
with a gas bill, you name it--they are able to register that day. That 
is the key when you look at all the numbers.
  What did Mr. Farr do? He actually defended one of the most 
restrictive voting laws, eliminating same-day voter registration. He 
reduced early voting and did away with voter registration for 16- and 
17-year-olds. How did he do it? He did it by defending those laws.
  When the law was challenged in court, the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals found that it was enacted with the intent to discriminate 
against minority voters. In its ruling, the court said that the law 
targeted minority voters. This is a quote from the circuit court, which 
is actually one of the more conservative circuits. They said that they 
did it with ``almost surgical precision.''
  Mr. Farr also defended North Carolina's redistricting plan against 
claims that it used race as the predominant consideration in drawing 
two congressional districts. A district court found that the plan 
constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The case went all 
the way to the Supreme Court, which agreed with the district court's 
decision.
  So you don't have just one incident of someone maybe getting on a 
legal brief or writing something or doing a law review article or 
writing a paper in college or in high school. This is a long, 
consistent, systematic record of defending discriminatory voting 
schemes. And I say ``schemes'' because that is what they are. They are 
done with the intention to discriminate against people of color.
  We should be making it easier to vote in our elections, not harder. 
That is why I am introducing legislation to automatically register 
eligible voters when they turn 18. That would be so easy. We wouldn't 
have to have all these fights all the time. We have modern-day 
technology that lets my hometown company of Target find a pair of shoes 
with a SKU number in Hawaii. There is no reason we can't go through the 
records and make sure we simply register people who are legal to vote 
when they turn 18.
  It is not just Mr. Farr's work in the courts that is concerning; I am 
also troubled by his involvement in a political campaign that was 
accused of engaging in tactics to discourage, once again, African 
Americans from voting. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights 
Division filed a complaint alleging that the campaign Mr. Farr worked 
on sent tens of thousands of postcards to heavily African-American 
districts intended to intimidate voters. According to a former 
Department of Justice official who investigated the campaign's alleged 
voter-intimidation tactics, Mr. Farr's answers to the Judiciary 
Committee denying his involvement were ``contrary to the facts.''
  Finally, I would like to remind my colleagues about the history of 
this vacancy. The Eastern District of North Carolina is 27 percent 
African American; yet the district has never had an African-American 
Federal judge. Before Mr. Farr was nominated, two other nominees were 
submitted to the Senate during the previous administration. Both of 
those nominees were African-American women. Neither of those nominees 
received a vote.
  Our courts must be dedicated to upholding the law, including 
safeguarding citizens' constitutional rights to vote. The future of our 
democracy depends on it.
  I am opposing this nomination.