[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7126-S7127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Thomas Farr

  Mr. President, I rise today to speak out on a less bipartisan issue 
against the concerted campaign by the administration and its allies to 
dramatically reshape our judiciary--to fill the courts with partisans 
and ideologues.
  President Trump has made no secret of his frustration at judges 
nominated by both Republicans and Democrats who choose to uphold the 
rule of law and, as Chief Justice Roberts has said, ``do equal right to 
those appearing before them.'' He is wrong to talk about Obama judges 
or Bush judges. In fact, the Chief Justice is absolutely right that 
when a person puts on the robe, they are no longer a judge nominated by 
any President; they are a judge doing the right thing, hopefully, from 
the bench in a completely bipartisan, nonpartisan way.
  Yet this administration has repeatedly put forward extreme nominees 
who will seek to undo decades of critically important progress in 
recognizing and protecting reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, voting 
rights, workers' rights, environmental protections, and more.
  In fact, we are scheduled to vote on a nominee for the Eastern 
District of North Carolina, Thomas Farr, who exemplifies this 
administration's efforts to remake the judiciary. He has been nominated 
for a judgeship that has been open for years. In fact, it is the 
longest open judicial vacancy in the country.
  In 2013, President Obama nominated Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer 
May-Parker to fill the seat. Senator Hagan returned a blue slip, but 
Senator Burr--despite formally recommending May-Parker to the White 
House for the position--declined to return his blue slip. At that time, 
the Senate still adhered to its longstanding practice of respecting 
blue slips and referring to home State Senators, so the nomination was 
never considered. To accommodate Senator Burr's obstruction, Senator 
Obama nominated North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Patricia Timmons-
Goodson to fill the vacancy on the district court in 2016. Neither 
Senators Burr nor Tillis returned blue slips on her nomination.
  Senator Burr had the right--and I may have misspoken when I referred 
to obstruction--when he declined to return that blue slip. Would that 
that right were still observed in this body. He had that right. He 
exercised it. But now President Trump has nominated Thomas Farr, an 
attorney whose career is defined by efforts to dilute African-American 
votes and suppress them through redistricting and to make it more 
difficult for African Americans to vote in the first place.
  Mr. Farr has worked to suppress minority votes since at least the 
early 1990s. The Department of Justice under George H.W. Bush alleged 
that Farr engaged in acts of voter intimidation during the 1990 
election. In fact, during that election, Farr served as legal counsel 
to Senator Jesse Helms. The Department of Justice alleged that Senator 
Helms' campaign sent out to Black communities tens of thousands of 
postcards that falsely told voters they could be found ineligible to 
vote based on various conditions. President Bush's Justice Department 
described this mail campaign as ``intended to intimidate thousands of 
African-American residents and discourage them from voting in a 1990 
Senate election.''
  Since then, Farr has become an attorney of choice for North 
Carolina's Republican politicians when they have sought to gerrymander 
and suppress voter efforts. Notably and most recently, he successfully 
represented the North Carolina legislature in Cooper v. Harris. That 
case involved two districts that were redrawn after the 2010 census as 
majority Black districts by removing African-American voters from other 
predominantly White districts. The redrawn districts effectively 
diluted the voting power of African Americans by concentrating the 
Black population in a smaller number of districts that already elected 
candidates who received strong support from African-American voters.
  The Supreme Court rejected Farr's defense of the redrawn districts 
and found that the legislature had engaged in unconstitutional racial 
gerrymandering. That ruling was remarkable--absolutely exceptional in 
Supreme Court jurisdiction--indicating the blatant and flagrant 
disregard for constitutional law in that gerrymandering.
  Farr also defended the North Carolina legislature in a challenge to 
its restrictive voter ID law. The day after the Supreme Court decision 
in Shelby County v. Holder struck down the preclearance requirements of 
section 5 in the Voting Rights Act, the Republicans in the North 
Carolina legislature requested data regarding the racial breakdown of 
the usage of various voting access tools.
  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law discriminated 
against African-American voters ``with almost surgical precision.''
  The court said: ``This sequence of events--the General Assembly's 
eagerness to, at the historic moment of Shelby County's issuance, rush 
through the legislative process the most restrictive voting law North 
Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow--bespeaks a certain 
purpose.''
  Thomas Farr argued in favor of those legislative districts that 
restricted representation of African-American voters in their State and 
Federal Government.
  President Trump has chosen this man to serve as a judge. I cannot 
vote for him. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this 
nominee. His nomination alone speaks volumes about the intentions and 
predilections of this administration. This nominee is not suited to the 
vital task that judges--particularly Federal district court judges--are 
empowered to carry out.
  This nominee is not fit for this job. I will vote no. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the 
nomination of Thomas Farr to the Federal bench, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against him.

[[Page S7127]]

  The right to vote is sacred and a precious human right, but it has 
been under attack, and that is unconscionable and wrong.
  This nominee represents yet another threat to the basic premise of 
one person, one vote because, throughout his career, he has worked to 
make it harder for Black Americans to vote. That is not who we are as a 
country, and this nominee does not deserve the privilege of a lifetime 
appointment on the Federal bench.
  Over and over again, on the most serious and consequential questions 
related to our sacred right to vote, Mr. Farr has been on the wrong 
side of the issue.
  Listen to his record: Mr. Farr defended in court a gerrymandered 
congressional map that was so blatantly racist that our Federal Court 
of Appeals judge ordered it to be redrawn. Mr. Farr defended in court 
State laws that were so obviously designed to suppress the Black vote 
that a Federal Court of Appeals ordered them to be struck down. He 
wasn't just a cheerleader for these discriminatory laws; he was the 
actual architect. He was their defender in court. He did everything he 
could to keep them in place.
  That is why millions of Americans all over the country, including so 
many men and women of color, the NAACP, and the Congressional Black 
Caucus, are so outraged by this nomination. They are right to be so 
because this nomination is an insult.
  This seat is the longest judicial vacancy in the country, but it did 
not have to be that way. Just a few years ago, a highly qualified 
nominee was picked to fill the seat, but she didn't even have a 
hearing, let alone a vote. So then another highly qualified nominee was 
picked to fill the seat, and she didn't receive a hearing either--or a 
basic vote. Now we have another nominee for the same exact seat, but 
this time my colleagues are practically tripping over themselves to 
rush him through the Senate at full speed, to push him across the 
finish line before the end of the year, and to hand him a lifetime 
appointment to the Court.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bad choice. Let's find someone 
better, who isn't so obviously biased on questions related to race. If 
his record of discrimination and bias alone isn't enough to convince 
you, then think about this: We cannot ignore the fact that this 
nomination is coming at a moment when so many Black Americans are still 
experiencing blatant and racist disenfranchisement every time they try 
to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Just look at the voter 
suppression that happened in Florida and in Georgia this month in their 
elections for Governor.
  We have already seen terrible decisions from the Federal bench that 
have rolled back voting rights, such as when the Supreme Court gutted 
the Voting Rights Act. This body has done nothing to address this 
egregious decision, and we should not be complicit in further eroding 
this precious right.
  Now we want to confirm another man to the Federal judiciary who has 
spent his entire legal career fighting to make it harder for Black 
Americans to vote. What kind of awful message are we sending to our 
country?
  We must reject this nominee. We must stand up to discrimination and 
racism in all its forms, not reinforce them, not encourage them.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.