VOLUME 96 - NUMBER 46 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA - SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2017 TELEPHONE (919) 682-2913 PRICE: 50 CENTS
Trump choosing white men as
judges, highest rate in decades
By Catherine Lucey and Meghan Hoyer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Donald Trump is nominating
white men to America’s federal courts at a rate not seen in nearly 30
years, threatening to reverse a slow transformation toward ajudiciary
that reflects the nation’s diversity.
So far, 91 percent of Trump’s nominees are white, and 81 percent
are male, an Associated Press analysis has found. Three of every four
are white men, with few African-Americans and Hispanics in the
mix. The last president to nominate a similarly homogenous group
was George H.W. Bush.
The shift could prove to be one of Trump’s most enduring legacies.
These are lifetime appointments, and Trump has inherited both an
unusually high number of vacancies and an aging population of
judges. That puts him in position to significantly reshape the courts
that decide thousands of civil rights, environmental, criminal justice
and other disputes across the country. The White House has been
upfront about its plans to quickly fill the seats with conservatives,
and has made clear that judicial philosophy tops any concerns about
shrinking racial or gender diversity.
Trump is anything but shy about his plans, calling his imprint on
the courts an “untold story” of his presidency.
“Nobody wants to talk about it,” he says. “But when you think
of it... that has consequences 40 years out.” He predicted at a recent
Cabinet meeting, “A big percentage of the court will be changed by
this administration over a very short period of time.”
Advocates for putting more women and racial minorities on the
bench argue that courts that more closely reflect the demographics
of the population ensure a broader range of viewpoints and inspire
greater confidence in judicial rulings.
One court that has become a focus in the debate is the Eastern
District of North Carolina, a region that, despite its sizeable black
population, has never had a black judge. A seat on that court has been
open for more than a decade. George W. Bush named a white man,
and Barack Obama at different points nominated two black women,
but none of those nominees ever came to a vote in the Senate.
Trump has renominated Bush’s original choice: Thomas Farr, a
private attorney whose work defending North Carolina’s redistricting
maps and a voter identification law has raised concerns among civil
rights advocates.
Kyle Barry, senior policy counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, said that when diversity is lacking, “there’s a
clear perception where the courts are not a place people can go and
vindicate their civil rights.”
In recent decades, Democrats have consistently named more
racial minorities and women on the courts. But even compared to
his Republican predecessors, Trump’s nominees stand out. So far, he
has nominated the highest percentage of white judges in his first year
since Ronald Reagan. If he continues on his trend through his first
term, he will be the first Republican since Herbert Hoover to name
fewer women and minorities to the court than his GOP predecessor.
The AP reviewed 58 nominees to lifetime positions on appellate
and district courts, as well as the Supreme Court, by the end of
October. Fifty-three are white, three are Asian-American, one is
Hispanic and one is African-American. There are 47 men and 11
women. Thirteen have won Senate approval.
The numbers stand in marked contrast to those of Obama,
who made diversifying the federal bench a priority. White men
represented just 37 percent of judges confirmed during Obama’s two
terms; nearly 42 percent of his judges were women.
Some of Obama’s efforts were thwarted by a Republican-led
Senate that blocked all of his nominations he made in the final year
of his presidency, handing Trump a backlog of more than 100 open
seats and significant sway over the future of the court.
Trump has moved aggressively to name new judges, getting off to
a much quicker start than his predecessors. He has nominated more
than twice as many as Obama had at this point in his presidency.
While there have been clashes in the Senate over the nomination
process, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled
that he is committed to moving judicial nominees through.
Many of Trump’s white, male nominees would replace white,
male judges. But of the Trump nominees currently pending, more
than a quarter are white males slated for seats have been held by
women or minorities.
Of the eight seats currently vacant that had non-white judges, only
one has a non-white nominee.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley says Trump is focused
on qualifications and suggests that prioritizing diversity would bring
politics to the bench.
“The president has delivered on his promise to nominate the best,
most-qualified judges,” Gidley said. “While past presidents may
have chosen to nominate activist judges with a political agenda and a
history of legislating from the bench, President Trump has nominated
outstanding originalist judges who respect the U.S. Constitution.”
Trump, who has cited the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice
Neil Gorsuch as a key achievement, has focused on judges with
conservative resumes. His picks have been welcomed by conservative
legal groups.
Leonard Leo, the executive vice president ofthe Federalist Society
who has advised Trump on judges, said the president’s judicial picks
should be evaluated based on his nominations to the Supreme Court
and appellate courts, given that home-state senators traditionally
offer recommendations for district courts that carry significant
weight when the lawmaker and the president are of the same party.
There have been 19 nominees to those higher courts; more than
two-thirds are white men.
And past presidents also have pushed for diversity at the district
courts. The Obama White House would make clear diversity was
a priority and “if we found good candidates, we would encourage
senators to take a look at them,” said Christopher Kang, who worked
on judicial nominations in the Obama administration.
Alberto Gonzales, who served as attorney general for George W.
Bush, says that when considering nominees “sometimes President
Bush would look at the list we gave him and he would say, T want
more diversity, I want more women, I want more minorities.’”
Republicans won 13 of 18
congressional seats in the 2014
and 2016 elections despite
earning a little over 50 percent
ofthe vote.
The federal judge’s order
said the “legislative privilege”
that Scarnati and Turzai had
asserted “is a qualified privilege
that may be pierced and
which at a minimum does not
shield communications with
third parties associated with
REDMAP nor protect facts and
data considered in connection
with redistricting.”
She said they must also
produce documents from 2009-
2012 over which they are not
claiming any type of privilege.
It’s unclear whether the two
Pennsylvania cases could result
in new congressional maps
in time for next year’s races,
starting with the May 15 primary.
Another significant unknown is
how the U.S. Supreme Court will
rule in a pending challenge to the
Wisconsin legislative districts,
a case that directly addresses
partisan gerrymandering.
In a court filings, the plaintiffs
in the Pennsylvania federal
lawsuit said Scarnati and Turzai
asserted legislative or First
Amendment privilege regarding
details of what they said was a
2011 meeting about redistricting
at the Harrisburg Hilton to which
all of the state’s Republican
congressmen were invited,
along with then-Gov. Tom
Corbett’s chief of staff. Corbett,
a Republican, signed off on the
maps.
The plaintiffs said the meeting
also included consultants to help
them draw congressional district
maps, but no Democrats.
Congressional district maps
are also being challenged in
Maryland, North Carolina and
Texas. Along with Wisconsin,
state legislative districts are
under challenge in North
Carolina and Texas.
Some of the young people in the NCCU Homecoming Parade. See photos on page 8.
GOP loses bid to shield communication
over congressional map
By Mark Scolforo
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -
The Pennsylvania Legislature’s
two highest-ranking Republican
leaders were ordered Nov. 9 to
turn over documents related to
development of the state’s latest
congressional districts map,
which a lawsuit claims has given
the GOP an unconstitutional
edge in elections.
A federal judge in Philadelphia
gave the leaders a week to
produce communications they or
aides had with the Redistricting
Majority Project, or REDMAP,
the party’s national redistricting
effort after the 2010 census,
as well as information used to
develop the map.
House Speaker Mike Turzai
and Senate President Pro
Tempore Joe Scarnati had fought
disclosure, citing legislative
privilege and other claims.
Neither they nor their lawyers
responded to requests for
comment.
The order concerns one of
two pending legal challenges to
the congressional maps, a federal
case that argues Republicans
improperly used their role
in administering elections to
achieve partisan objectives. It is
scheduled to go to trial on Dec.
4.
“We need to show that the
people who drew the maps used
partisan data,” said Alice Ballard,
a lawyer for the Pennsylvania
voters who sued. “We think
these facts and data will get us
very close to our goal.”
The outcome of the case,
as well as a similar state court
case that was fast-tracked Nov.
9 by the state Supreme Court,
could have a seismic effect on
elections in Pennsylvania. It’s
a swing state where Democrats
outnumber Republicans and
have had a recent winning record
in statewide contests but are
deeply in the minority in both
chambers of the Legislature.
Lawmakers’ emails provided important information during a
lawsuit challenging a package of voter laws passed in North Carolina
in 2013, including a photo ID requirement. In that case, emails
revealed state lawmakers had requested demographic information on
voters.
That data request was cited by an appeals court panel in its ruling
that tossed out the voter ID law, describing it as targeting African-
American voters with “almost surgical precision.”
Such emails are almost always helpful, said Allison Riggs, a
lawyer with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice who argued the
case on behalf of the North Carolina plaintiffs.
“People are getting more and more subtle about their discriminatory
motives,” Riggs. “That’s why getting these wins, where we get
whatever evidence might exist in emails or communications, it’s so
important for us.”
Legislative emails between majority Republicans and a law firm
hired to redraw legislative lines in Wisconsin also were used by
Democrats to build a gerrymandering case they filed in 2015.
J
Associated Press writers David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri,
and Christina Almeida Cassidy in Atlanta contributed to this story.
Hate crimes rose for 2nd year
in a row in 2016, FBI reports
By Sadie Gurman
WASHINGTON (AP) - Hate crimes rose for the second straight
year in 2016, with increases in attacks motivated by bias against
blacks, Jews, Muslims and LGBT people, according to FBI statistics,
released Nov. 13.
There were more than 6,100 hate crimes last year, up about 5
percent over the previous year. In 2015 and 2016, that number was
driven by crimes against people because of their race or ethnicity.
More than half the 4,229 racially motivated crimes were against
black people, while 20 percent were against whites, the report shows:
And Jews were targeted in more than half the 1,538 crimes that were
motivated by religion. Crimes fueled by bias against LGBT people
rose from 203 in 2015 to 234 last year.
The yearly report is the most comprehensive accounting of hate
crimes in the U.S. But authorities have long warned it is incomplete,
in part because it is based on voluntary reporting by police agencies
across the country.
The numbers likely reflect an uptick recorded by civil rights groups
in harassment and vandalism targeting Muslims, Jews, blacks and
others amid the presidential campaign, which included sharp rhetoric
from Republican Donald Trump and others against immigrants,
especially Muslims. There were 307 crimes against Muslims in 2016,
up from 257 in 2015, which at the time was the highest number since
the aftermath ofthe Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In releasing the figures, the FBI said hate crimes remain the
“number one investigative priority” of its civil rights unit and pledged
to continue collecting data on the problem. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions has said it would be a top focus of his Justice Department
NC©
W