[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 188 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7202-S7205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Thomas Farr

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Thomas Farr to the Eastern District of North Carolina. 
Those who sit on the Federal bench are bound to uphold the Constitution 
for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or political 
leaning, but Mr. Farr cannot be trusted to defend equal justice under 
the law.
  Working to disenfranchise voters with a particular hostility toward 
African-American voters has been his lifelong passion. Consider his 
work for Jesse Helms' 1990 Senate campaign. We all know Helms' record 
on race.
  When the Justice Department brought a lawsuit against the Helms 
campaign for sending over 100,000 postcards to mostly African-American 
voters, falsely warning them that they were ineligible to vote and 
could be prosecuted for casting a ballot, it was Mr. Farr who defended 
the scheme. Yet, despite having served as the Helms' campaign attorney, 
Farr denied having any involvement with the postcards in his Senate 
questionnaire.
  Mr. Farr claimed he did not ``participate in any meetings in which 
the postcards were discussed before they were sent,'' but according to 
the former head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, 
Gerald Hebert, ``the answers in [Farr's] questionnaire are contrary to 
the facts.''
  Mr. Hebert took contemporaneous notes while investigating the Helms 
campaign--notes that place Mr. Farr at

[[Page S7203]]

a meeting on the postcard scheme just 3 weeks before they were sent.
  Years later, Farr led a 3-year legal battle to defend North Carolina 
law that disgracefully shortened early voting, instituted onerous 
government ID requirements, and eliminated same-day voter registration 
and out-of-precinct voting, all of which are known to 
disproportionately suppress minority, elderly, and disabled voters.
  Federal courts ruled the law unconstitutional for targeting African-
American voters ``with almost surgical precision''--purposeful, 
surgical precision--calling it the most restrictive law since the era 
of Jim Crow.
  I know Republicans want to confirm as many judges as possible, but 
why this judge when there are so many other qualified jurists to choose 
from? I think it is because they know the GOP agenda of enriching big 
corporations at the expense of everyday working families is incredibly 
unpopular with the American people.
  Consider that while the Republicans held onto the Senate this year, 
they lost by 16 million votes nationwide. Democracy is supposed to be a 
battle of ideas, but when it comes to healthcare or student loan debt 
or climate change, they don't have any. When you can't win a fair 
fight, what do you do? You tilt the playing field in your favor.
  Republicans want to stack the court with judges who will do their 
bidding--grossly out of step with the American people on everything 
from voting rights and redistricting to healthcare and climate change, 
to the constitutionality of Whitaker's appointment to lead the Justice 
Department. That is what Leader McConnell meant about nominations being 
Republicans' best chance of having a long-term impact on the Nation's 
future. It is their best chance at denying minorities from voting and 
forcing their bad ideas on the American people.
  The Republicans are so intent on confirming judges with shameful 
records on voter suppression that they have shredded the blue-slip 
process here in the Senate, which allows the Senators to green-light or 
to prevent hearings on nominees from their home States. It is a 
process--Senator Hatch once called the blue-slip process the last 
remaining check on the President's judicial appointment power.
  Ironically, back in 2013, when President Obama nominated an African-
American assistant U.S. attorney named Jennifer May-Parker to this very 
seat, the Democrats respected Senator Burr's decision not to return a 
blue slip, and then-Chairman Pat Leahy chose not to hold a Judiciary 
Committee hearing. Then, in 2016, President Obama nominated Patricia 
Timmons-Goodson, the first African-American woman on the North Carolina 
Supreme Court, to this same seat. If confirmed, either of these 
trailblazing women would have become the first African American to 
serve in the Eastern District of North Carolina--a district that is 27-
percent African American. Yet neither Senator Burr nor Senator Tillis 
returned a blue slip for Ms. Timmons-Goodson; thus, Chairman Grassley 
did not act on her nomination.
  Yet, today, President Trump's nominees are being confirmed despite 
objections from home State Senators. Paul Matey, a nominee from New 
Jersey, will likely become another example. Neither I nor Senator 
Booker were meaningfully consulted by the White House regarding New 
Jersey's open seat on the Third Circuit. For several reasons, we 
haven't returned blue slips for Paul Matey; yet they moved ahead with 
the hearing for him. So it has been eviscerated--totally, totally.
  It has gone little by little. First, if one of the two Senators 
turned in a blue slip, that was enough. Now it doesn't matter that 
neither Senator turns in a blue slip; they go ahead with the hearing 
and probably with a vote. So the precious check and balance that 
Senator Hatch talked about as the last vestige of a check and balance 
on judicial nominations has largely been lost.
  The Republicans claim to be the party of conservatism. Yet I see 
nothing conservative in their willingness to sweep aside century-old 
procedures for policy gain. They put their party before their country 
and show no fidelity to the institutions that have truly made this 
country great. Something is wrong with any political party that makes 
the suppression of voters its chief electoral strategy. Mr. Farr is 
just one more card in their deliberate effort to stack the deck against 
our democracy, to disenfranchise voters and force their unpopular, bad 
ideas on our country.
  For the sake of our democracy, I urge my colleagues, in this case 
particularly, to do the decent thing, to do the right thing--to stand 
up for the voting rights of all Americans and reject this nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is there a time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I know there are others waiting, so I 
don't estimate I will take more than 10 or 12 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to the nomination of Tom Farr to the Eastern 
District of North Carolina. I do so as the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  The vote for Mr. Farr's nomination, as Members know, had been 
scheduled for today, but it has been postponed. Mr. Farr's long career 
indicates that his history raises serious questions about his ability 
to safeguard voting rights for all Americans. In fact, he has a history 
involving voter suppression efforts, which leads me to question his 
qualifications to even be a Federal judge.
  Farr's hostility toward voting rights can be traced back to the 1980s 
and 1990s when he worked as a lead attorney for Senator Jesse Helms' 
reelection campaign. Media reports indicate that he was not truthful in 
his responses to questions for the record about his involvement in 
voter suppression efforts that were orchestrated by the Helms campaign 
and by the Republican Party of North Carolina.
  Here are the facts:
  In 1990, Helms was in a tight race with the mayor of Charlotte, 
Harvey Gantt, and the campaign implemented a strategy to suppress and 
confuse African-American voters. The Helms campaign and the North 
Carolina GOP implemented a so-called ballot security program. That 
program included sending more than 120,000 postcards almost exclusively 
to African-American voters, saying they were required to live in a 
precinct for at least 30 days prior to election day and could be 
subjected to criminal prosecution.
  This information was, in fact, false. In fact, one African-American 
voter in the State who received a postcard that informed him that he 
could not vote if he had not lived in his voting precinct for at least 
30 days had lived at the same address for more than 30 years and had 
been registered to vote that entire time. So clearly these postcards 
were designed to intimidate African-American voters.
  In committee, I asked Mr. Farr about this program and his 
participation in it. He told me that he did not provide any counsel and 
was not aware of the postcards until after they were sent. Former 
Federal prosecutor Gerald Hebert, who had worked on voting rights 
issues at the time, contradicted these statements.
  To get to the bottom of it, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee 
requested a copy of a Justice Department memo that reportedly detailed 
Farr's role in this voter suppression incident, but the Department 
would not provide a copy of the memo. The Washington Post has now 
obtained the memo, which clearly shows that Farr was, in fact, involved 
in these voter intimidation efforts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the appropriate parts of the Washington 
Post article and a memorandum be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2018]

 Fate of Divisive Judicial Nominee From North Carolina Uncertain Amid 
                               Criticism

                   (By Seung Min Kim and John Wagner)

       The fate of President Trump's divisive judicial nominee 
     hung in the balance Tuesday as a Republican senator remained 
     undecided on whether to confirm Thomas Farr, who previously 
     worked to defend North Carolina voting laws ruled to have 
     been discriminatory against African Americans.

[[Page S7204]]

       Senate Democrats have been particularly critical of Farr, 
     an attorney in Raleigh who backed a law that the courts 
     called ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has 
     seen since the era of Jim Crow.'' All 49 Democrats oppose the 
     nomination.
       Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, two black candidates who 
     fell short in high-profile gubernatorial races this month, 
     criticized the nomination in a new statement Tuesday, 
     underscoring the national fight over Farr's nomination to a 
     seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
     North Carolina.
       ``Thomas Farr's record of hostility and disregard for 
     fundamental civil rights disqualifies him for a lifetime 
     appointment that will allow him to codify his discriminatory 
     ideology into law,'' Gillum and Abrams said in a joint 
     statement. ``North Carolina's Eastern District--where most of 
     the state's African Americans live--should be represented by 
     a Bench that represents its diversity, not one that actively 
     works to disenfranchise them.''
       Senate Republican leaders have been publicly confident that 
     they will have the votes to confirm Farr, although they will 
     almost certainly need to summon Vice President Pence to break 
     a 50-50 tie.
       Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has vowed to oppose all judicial 
     nominations until the chamber votes on legislation that he is 
     seeking that would protect special counsel Robert S. Mueller 
     III. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Tuesday that he had made no 
     decision on the nomination.
       Farr worked on the 1990 campaign of Sen. Jesse Helms (R-
     N.C.), which came under scrutiny for distributing postcards 
     that the Justice Department later said were sent to 
     intimidate black voters from heading to the polls.
       The postcard issue has become one factor in the unusually 
     bitter nomination fight. In response to questions from 
     Democrats, Farr has denied any role in drafting the postcards 
     and said he did not know about them until after the mailers 
     were sent, saying he was ``appalled'' when he found out about 
     them.
       A 1991 Justice Department document newly obtained by The 
     Washington Post sheds some light on Helms's campaign and the 
     state Republican Party's broader ``ballot security'' program, 
     of which the postcards were one component. Farr served as a 
     lead lawyer for Helms.
       The DOJ document, called a justification memo, elaborates 
     on a meeting disclosed by Farr in a letter to Sen. Cory 
     Booker (D-N.J.) last year. In that five-page letter, Farr 
     said he participated in a ``ballot security'' meeting of the 
     Helms campaign in October 1990 in which he said there was no 
     need to do a card mailing because returned cards could no 
     longer be used to challenge voter legitimacy.
       The DOJ document obtained by The Post outlined the basis 
     for the DOJ complaint against the Helms campaign and the 
     North Carolina Republican Party for the more than 120,000 
     postcards sent primarily to black voters that officials said 
     were an attempt to dissuade them from voting.
       At the meeting, Farr told others that there were a limited 
     number of ballot security initiatives that the groups could 
     undertake at that point in the race, according to the memo. 
     He also said because the current Republican governor could 
     tap a majority of county election officials statewide, the 
     need for a ballot security program that year was lessened 
     because ``they would ensure a fair election process for 
     Republican candidates.''
       During the meeting, participants also reviewed the Helms 
     campaign's 1984 ballot security effort Farr had coordinated 
     ``with an eye toward the activities that should be undertaken 
     in 1990,'' the DOJ wrote in the memo. The document did not 
     say directly whether the controversial postcards were 
     discussed as part of that effort, and Farr has repeatedly 
     denied any prior knowledge of those mailers.
       Farr was not named in the DOJ complaint against the 
     Republican entities, and he also signed a consent decree that 
     effectively settled the issue in early 1992.
       Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), one of Farr's most vocal 
     supporters, had asked a former prosecutor to investigate the 
     claims that Farr was directly involved with the controversial 
     postcards. That investigation has turned up no evidence.
       ``I'd ask them one simple question: When in the history of 
     the DOJ have they allowed somebody who was subject to the 
     investigation negotiate the consent agreement and sign it?'' 
     Tillis said Tuesday. ``Never happens, which is exactly why 
     these are baseless claims.''
       Booker had requested DOJ release the justification memo, 
     but it declined, citing confidentiality issues. A Justice 
     Department spokesman declined to comment Tuesday on the memo. 
     Farr did not return an email requesting a comment; nor did 
     the White House.
       The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Farr's confirmation 
     with a party-line vote in January. Republicans in control of 
     the North Carolina General Assembly hired Farr and others in 
     his law firm to defend congressional boundaries it approved 
     in 2011. In 2016, a federal court struck down the map as a 
     racial gerrymander.
       Farr also helped defend a 2013 voter ID law that was 
     considered one of the strictest in the nation. In addition to 
     requiring residents to show identification before they could 
     cast a ballot, the law also eliminated same-day voter 
     registration, got rid of seven days of early voting and ended 
     out-of-precinct voting.
       A federal court ruled in 2016 that the primary purpose of 
     North Carolina's law wasn't to stop voter fraud but rather to 
     disenfranchise minority voters. The judges wrote that the law 
     targeted African Americans ``with almost surgical 
     precision,'' in part because the only acceptable forms of 
     voter identification were ones disproportionately used by 
     white people.
       Farr has a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar 
     Association and was previously nominated to the same post by 
     President George W. Bush.
       Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he 
     spoke to Gillum and Abrams earlier in the day and that they 
     ``were hurt by attempts to limit voting rights.'' During a 
     floor speech, Schumer called Farr the ``chief cook and bottle 
     washer'' for the contested laws in North Carolina.
       ``I don't care what your party is, and I don't care what 
     your political ideology is,'' Schumer said. ``How can you 
     have this man in the court?''
       The history of the seat Farr would fill also has 
     contributed to the acrimony over his nomination. President 
     Barack Obama nominated two African American women for the 
     post during his tenure, but neither was granted a hearing. 
     This is the longest current court vacancy nationwide.
       Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been considered a potential 
     ``no'' voted on Farr because he was prepared earlier this 
     year to join Scott in voting against another judicial nominee 
     with a history of racially charged writing. That nomination 
     was withdrawn.
       On Tuesday, however, Rubio--who was briefed by his staff on 
     the nomination Tuesday evening--was prepared to vote for Farr 
     barring any new information that may come out about him, 
     according to a Senate official familiar with his thinking.
       Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), another potential swing vote, 
     also backs Farr.
                                  ____


     Action Memorandum--Recommended Lawsuit Against North Carolina 
Republican Party, Helms Campaign for Senate Committee, et al. Under 42 
                 U.S.C. 1971(b) and 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b)

                            (June 19, 1991)

     From John P. Dunne, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 
         Division.
     Lee H. Rubin, Attorney, Voting Section, Civil Rights 
         Division.


                          [EXCERPT: PAGE 8-9]

     D. The Investigation
       Our investigation began on November 1, 1990, the day we 
     obtained reliable information that the postcards at issue had 
     been sent primarily to black voters throughout the State. On 
     that day, we requested that the FBI contact Jack Hawke, 
     Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, and ask Mr. 
     Hawke, among other things, the method used to select the 
     voters who were sent postcards and all plans regarding the 
     use of the returned postcards. Mr. Hawke refused to return 
     FBI Agent George Dyer's phone calls, and eventually referred 
     Dyer to his attorney, Thomas Farr, an attorney with Maupin, 
     Taylor, Ellis and Adams, in Raleigh, who was immediately 
     advised by Mr. Dyer of the information we sought from the 
     North Carolina Republican Party.
       On Monday, November 5, 1990, after receiving no information 
     responsive to our request, you contacted Mr. Farr and 
     insisted that he provide us with the information we requested 
     by that afternoon. During this conversation, Farr assured you 
     that no information obtained from the returned cards would be 
     used as a basis to challenge voters on election day. Late in 
     the afternoon on November 5, Farr telefaxed to us a list of 
     precincts, which he orally represented to be the precincts in 
     which the voters selected to receive the postcards resided. 
     Although Farr also advised us that Hawke would be made 
     available that day for an interview with Dyer and myself, 
     Hawke in fact did not submit to a voluntary interview that 
     day.
       The lack of cooperation which marked the initial stages of 
     the investigation has persisted during the course of our 
     investigation. Soon after the election, we contacted the 
     North Carolina Republican Party, the Jefferson Marketing 
     Companies, Mr. Ed Locke, and Mr. Doug Davidson, and requested 
     that they provide us with all information relevant to our 
     investigation. Mr. Hawke and Ms. Effie Pernell, the Executive 
     Director of the North Carolina Republican Party, voluntarily 
     spoke with Dyer on November 9, 1990. In late November, we 
     received a request from Mr. Michael Carvin, one of the 
     attorneys representing the North Carolina Republican Party, 
     for a meeting with Department attorneys to discuss our 
     investigation. At the time we received this request, we were 
     on the verge of obtaining voluntary statements from 
     individuals associated with Jefferson Marketing and from Doug 
     Davidson. However, the respective counsel chose to delay the 
     scheduling of any interviews until we responded to Mr. 
     Carvin's request. Asserting that the requested meeting would 
     be ``premature,'' we declined the invitation to meet with 
     Carvin on December 21.


                         [EXCERPT: PAGE 11-14]

     D. The 1990 ``Ballot Security'' Program
       The postcard mailing was one component of the 1990 ``ballot 
     security'' program financed by the NCGOP. The wheels for the 
     1990 ``ballot security'' program were set in motion long 
     before the actual mailing of the postcards. According to Doug 
     Davidson, of Campaign Management, Inc., ``ballot security'' 
     was discussed at several meetings held during the summer 
     months of 1990. These meetings were attended by Davidson, 
     Carter

[[Page S7205]]

     Wrenn, a consultant to the Helms Committee, Peter Moore, the 
     campaign manager for the Helms committee, Jack Hawke, 
     Chairman of the NCGOP, and Effie Pernell, Executive Director 
     of the NCGOP. During these meetings, in addition to 
     discussing general campaign strategy, Davidson recalls that a 
     consensus was reached that some type of ``ballot security'' 
     effort needed to be undertaken prior to the 1990 general 
     election. Peter Moore confirmed Davidson's recollections, as 
     he recalls meetings in which discussions focused upon the 
     need for a ``ballot security'' program in connection with the 
     November, 1990 election. At one of these meetings involving 
     the leadership of the Helms Committee and the NCGOP, the 
     decision was made to budget $25,000 for the 1990 ``ballot 
     security'' program and to finance the ``ballot security'' 
     program with NCGOP funds.
       In early September, 1990, Ed Locke, a political consultant 
     from Charlotte who had played a major role in organizing the 
     1984 ``ballot security'' program for the NCGOP and the 1984 
     Helms Committee, contacted Tom Farr to offer his services for 
     coordinating the 1990 ``ballot security'' program.
       On October 16th, Davidson and possibly Tom Farr, who had 
     worked with Ed Locke on the 1984 ``ballot security'' program 
     for the NCGOP and the Helms Committee, contacted Locke by 
     telephone in Charlotte and asked Locke if he would be willing 
     to meet in Raleigh to discuss the 1990 ``ballot security'' 
     program. Apparently Peter Moore and Carter Wrenn had been 
     consulted concerning contacting Locke for discussions on the 
     ``ballot security'' program and had given their assent to 
     pursue such discussions. Locke agreed to meet with the Helms 
     Committee representatives and flew to Raleigh the next day.
       In Raleigh, he met initially with Moore, Davidson, and 
     Farr. This meeting was held at Farr's law firm, Maupin, 
     Taylor, Ellis & Adams. At the meeting, the participants 
     apparently reviewed the 1984 ``ballot security'' program with 
     an eye toward the activities that should be undertaken in 
     1990. Davidson stated that by the end of the meeting they had 
     formulated a tentative outline for the 1990 ``ballot 
     security'' effort. Davidson recalls that a mailing targeted 
     at voters who no longer resided in the precinct in which they 
     are registered was one of the projects suggested for 1990. 
     They also discussed who would be best suited to coordinate 
     the ``ballot security'' effort.
       According to Farr, he told the attendees of the meeting 
     that there was only a limited number of ``ballot security'' 
     programs that could be undertaken with only about three weeks 
     left in the election. Farr also stated that the need for a 
     ``ballot security'' program was not as compelling as in 1984, 
     since, unlike in 1984, the state had a Republican governor. 
     Since the Governor has power to appoint two out of the three 
     members of each county's board of elections, Farr explained 
     that the Republican-controlled county election boards 
     throughout the state would serve effectively as a statewide 
     ``ballot security'' program, as they would ensure a fair 
     election process for Republican candidates. He suggested that 
     contact be made with a Republican board of elections member 
     in every county to ensure that they will be working on 
     election day. He also suggested that, to the extent that any 
     ``ballot security'' programs are undertaken, they should 
     focus on those precincts with little or no Republican 
     presence at the polls. To this end, he advised that the Helms 
     Committee/NCGOP should hire observers to watch the opening 
     and closing of the polls in such precincts. He suggested that 
     it may also be helpful to publicize the fact that a ``ballot 
     security'' program is going to be undertaken.
       When the idea of a card mailing was raised, Farr told us 
     that he explained to Locke and the others that while during 
     the 1984 election, state law provided that returned postcards 
     may serve as prima facie evidence that a voter was not 
     properly registered to vote in that precinct, such procedures 
     had been altered subsequent to that election so that a 
     returned mailing could no longer serve to support an election 
     day challenge of voters. He told the others that in light of 
     this change, a postcard mailing like the mailing conducted in 
     1984 would not be particularly useful, except for use as 
     evidence in post-election challenges.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The memo includes Farr's own retelling of meetings in 
which sending postcards to voters was discussed. In fact, Farr told 
colleagues that postcards might not be as effective in kicking voters 
off the rolls as they had been in 1984. It is impossible, though, to 
square this memo with Farr's denial to the Judiciary Committee that he 
had any knowledge of these actions.
  In addition, since that time, Mr. Farr has remained active in efforts 
to depress and dilute African-American voting. In several cases, Farr 
defended North Carolina's congressional and legislative districts that 
were drawn after the 2010 Census against allegations that the State 
legislature drew them to dilute the vote of African Americans. Farr has 
defended these districts before North Carolina's State courts, Federal 
courts, and the Supreme Court. However, in each instance, his arguments 
have been rejected.
  In North Carolina v. Covington, a three-judge panel in the Middle 
District of North Carolina found that ``race was the predominant factor 
motivating the drawing of all challenged [state legislative] 
districts.''
  In Harris v. McCrory, two of the three Federal judges on a panel held 
that the State's congressional redistricting plan violated the 14th 
Amendment's equal protection clause.
  In 2016, Farr also defended North Carolina's restrictive voter ID law 
in the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory. He had 
served as an adviser to the State legislature as it was considering 
that legislation. In arguing before the Fourth Circuit, Farr strongly 
denied that racial animus toward African Americans was the motivation 
for the voter ID law. The court, however, strongly disagreed. In 
striking down the law, the court strongly rejected Farr's arguments, 
noting that the law's requirements ``target African Americans with 
almost surgical precision.'' That is the Fourth Circuit's confirming 
that racial animus was part of this.
  The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation expressed its strong 
opposition to Farr's nomination, writing that ``Farr has amassed a 
record that puts him at the forefront of an extended fight to 
disenfranchise African-American voters.''
  Opposition to Farr's nomination has been compounded by the history of 
this particular vacancy, which has been open for a long time--actually, 
since 2006. President Obama nominated two highly qualified African-
American women to fill the vacancy. Either would have been the first 
African American to serve on the court--a long-overdue milestone in a 
district in which more than 25 percent of the population is African 
American.
  The first nominee, Jennifer May-Parker, served as chief of the 
Appellate Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern 
District of North Carolina. By that time, she had served in the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for 14 years. Her nomination did not move forward 
because she didn't receive a blue slip from the State's Republican 
Senator even though he had initially recommended her to the White House 
as a potential nominee.
  The second nominee, Patricia Timmons-Goodson, served as the vice 
chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She had previously served 
as an associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court and as an 
associate judge for the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Again, 
Republicans did not allow her nomination to move forward.
  While the Republicans have undermined the blue-slip policy to confirm 
President Trump's judicial nominees, it is important to know that the 
only reason Tom Farr's nomination is under consideration today is that 
Republican blue slips were honored by the Democrats during the Obama 
administration. In short, the Republicans blocked two highly qualified 
African-American women from filling the vacancy in order to hold the 
seat open for a White nominee with a history of disenfranchising Black 
Americans. I am sorry to say that, but that is the way it was.
  It is impossible to see how the people Tom Farr would serve in the 
Eastern District of North Carolina would ever believe they would be 
getting a fair shot in his courtroom. The Senate should reject this 
nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.