Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Confirmation Hearing On The Nominations of Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. and Robert D. Mccallum, Jr. To Be Assistant Attorneys General
Confirmation Hearing On The Nominations of Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. and Robert D. Mccallum, Jr. To Be Assistant Attorneys General
107415
HEARING
BEFORE THE
(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78818 DTP WASHINGTON : 2002
(II)
CONTENTS
PRESENTERS
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts
presenting Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Rights Division ................................................................................ 2
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massa-
chusetts presenting Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
General for the Civil Rights Division ................................................................. 4
(III)
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINA-
TIONS OF RALPH F. BOYD, JR. AND ROBERT
D. McCALLUM, JR. TO BE ASSISTANT AT-
TORNEYS GENERAL
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE JUDICIARY,
ON THE
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room
SD226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Kennedy.
Mr. Chairman, we are here to present Mr. Robert D. McCallum, Jr. to the Senate
Judiciary Committee as the Presidents nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Division. Mr McCallum comes highly recommended from several of his
colleagues for whom we both have a great deal of respect. It is our pleasure to
present him today as a fellow Georgian with impressive credentials and support
from many in our state.
Mr. McCallum received his undergraduate degree, cum laude, in History from
Yale University in 1968. He also attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar
and graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. Immediately following law school, Mr.
McCallum joined the law firm of Alston, Miller & Gaines, the predecessor firm to
Alston & Bird, as an associate in 1973. He is currently a partner in the law firm
of Alston & Bird where his specialty is civil litigation with emphasis on appellate
practice, commercial real estate litigation, insurance class action litigation and ad-
ministrative proceedings, and medical malpractice defense. He has written several
journal articles in the Mercer Law Review and he wrote a chapter in Gynecological
Surgery. Mr. McCallum has also lectured regarding eminent domain law and evi-
dence at Georgia seminars and at the 1992 American
Mr. McCallum is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, the Atlanta Bar Associa-
tion and the American Bar Association. He is also a member of the Yale Club of
Georgia, the Yale Alumni Fund, the Brookwood Hills Civic Association, Butler
Street YMCA, and the Rhodes Scholarship Trust. Mr. McCallum is also a member
of several civic and cultural organizations such as the High Museum of Art, the Wil-
4
derness Society, the Atlanta History Center, and Atlanta Preservation Center. He
is also the Georgia Representative to the Yale Law School Alumni Association
Board.
Mr. McCallum is an excellent attorney and will be a great addition to the Justice
Department as an Assistant Attorney General. Therefore, we recommend Mr. Robert
McCallum to the Committee and the United States Senate and urge that he be
promptly confirmed. Thank you.
Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator Kennedy. And that
is about as high a recommendation as I have heard around here
in a long time, and I feel exactly the same. And coming from Sen-
ator Kennedy, former Chairman of this Committee in the good old
days
Senator KENNEDY. Soon to return.
[Laughter.]
Senator KENNEDY. It just slipped out, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HATCH. You mean you are going to come back as
chairman?
[Laughter.]
Chairman HATCH. But that is very, very high praise for you, Mr.
Boyd.
Congressman Tierney is here. We are really happy to have you
here, coming over to back Mr. Boyd. We appreciate you. Would you
care to make any statement? We would be very happy to take your
statement at this time.
PRESENTATION OF RALPH F. BOYD, JR., NOMINEE TO BE AS-
SISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVI-
SION BY HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Representative TIERNEY. Thank you, Senator. I really do not
have a long statement to make. I think Senator Kennedy said it
all very well, and I would not even want to try to compete with
that, except to say that I have had the opportunity to meet and
know Ralph Boyd now, and that we are sure that he is going to
make a good representative of our community and of the country,
and that all of the things that Senator Kennedy said about him
being concerned about individuals and having respect for individ-
uals is absolutely true. We are very supportive of Ralphs nomina-
tion, and we do hope that the Senate gives him a speedy confirma-
tion. And we thank you for your hearing here today.
Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much, and thanks for tak-
ing the time, and I am sure Mr. Boyd appreciates it as well as I
do.
I have to say it is fortunate for the Committee that Mr. Boyd is
no stranger to legal complexity. He has an informed perspective
about civil rights in America today. He is an excellent candidate to
lead the Civil Rights Division.
He graduated from Harvard Law School where he was editor of
the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review. As an Assist-
ant US Attorney in Boston, he investigated and prosecuted bank
fraud, firearms, homicide, narcotics trafficking, bombing and bank
robbery cases, as well as a couple of high-profile gang violence
cases. It sounds like they have a pretty rough time up there in Bos-
ton.
[Laughter.]
5
torney General for the Civil Division, and I have no doubt that he
will be able to execute his duties skillfully and professionally.
So, again, I commend President Bush for his good choice here,
and commend you for being chosen and for the great record that
you have. So it is a great pleasure to welcome both of you to the
Committee.
I wonder if we can get you both to take your chairs, or if you will
both stand, rather, and raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Boyd. I do.
Mr. McCallum. I do.
Chairman HATCH. Thank you. Now we have a complication here.
This morning they are trying to finish up the tax bill, and there
may be four, five or six votes, and it is apparent that other mem-
bers of the Committee are stuck over on the floor where I was. So
what I am going to do is start this off with both of you, and hope-
fully some of them will come. We may have to recess till these
votes are over. I hate to tell you that, but hopefully, we can get this
hearing completed today. I would like to give our colleagues on the
other side at least an opportunity to ask questions to both of you.
Lets turn to you, Mr. Boyd. Do you have a statement you care
to make?
And then we will turn to you, Mr. McCallum.
STATEMENT OF RALPH F. BOYD, JR., OF MASSACHUSETTS,
NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
Mr. BOYD. I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I wondered if I
might introduce my family members to you, as well as the family
members who are not present today.
Chairman HATCH. We would love to have you do that.
Mr. BOYD. And if I could start, Mr. Chairman, by talking about
those who are not able to be here today, starting with my wife of
almost 13 years, Angela, who wanted to be here today, but has just
returned to the East Coast from the Olympia area in Washington
State, attending to her family after the death of her father 2 weeks
ago.
Chairman HATCH. Sorry about that.
Mr. BOYD. And she would be here otherwise.
In addition, my five children, whomy wife, I should say, is the
architect of our family in many meaningful respects, and she is the
mother of our five children, who Senator Kennedy noted also are
not here. And if I could just introduce them by name. My oldest
child is Caitlin Elizabeth. She is 12-years-old, and she along with
my second daughter, Jessica, who is 10, are back at the Ipswich
Public Schools taking their MCAS examinations today, which is a
State examination in Massachusetts, controversial to some, but the
theory is that it measures the command that students have of ma-
terial and certain subject matters, and so they are both facing an
examination probably as important to them today as I am. So they
are back in Boston with their mother and in school.
In addition, my remaining three children, Maggie, who is 5-
years-old, Jamie who is also 5-years-old, and Jeremy, who is 5-
7
Superior Court of Cobb County and ask for Judge Ingram, you
have to specify which judge you are talking about.
I very much appreciate this Committee affording me this oppor-
tunity to discuss issues that are of interest to the Committee in
evaluating my qualifications for this position, and I will look for-
ward to providing whatever information might be helpful. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The biographical information of Mr. McCallum follows:]
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Question 1. The Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing the civil rights
laws of our nation in areas such as education, employment, housing, voting rights,
and disability rights. You have spent most of your legal career in criminal matters,
as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and in commercial litigation practice, as an associate
and later a partner with various Boston law firms. It appears that you have no sub-
stantial experience enforcing civil rights laws. Can you tell this Committee how your
experience has prepared you to undertake the responsibilities of the Assistant Attor-
ney General for Civil Rights?
Answer. I have been involved in civil rights, and dealt with civil rights-related
issues, all my life. As a child, I grew up attending civil rights and community action
program meetings with both of my parents, whoalong with other committed peo-
plewere co-founders of the Schenectady, N.Y. branch of the NAACP. While in
Schenectady, I served as co-chair of the Schenectady, N.Y. NAACP branchs Afro-
Academic, Cultural, Technological, and Scientific Olympics Program (ACTSO),
which provides opportunities for high school students of color to demonstrate their
academic talents and achievements in local, state and national competitions. During
the year that I organized and raised money for this effort, the Schenectady NAACP
branch sent five local high school students to the national competition in Denver,
Colorado.
While at Harvard Law School, I served as an editor of the Civil Rights Civil Lib-
erties Law Review, and as President of the Harvard Defenders, a student public de-
fender organization. During my second and third years of law school, I represented
numerous indigent criminal defendants in the Roxbury (Boston), Dorchester (Bos-
ton), and East Boston district courts.
Following law school, I clerked for the Honorable Joseph H. Young, United States
District Judge, District of Maryland. During my clerkship, I assisted Judge Young
in the preparation of two published civil rights decisions. See McAdoo v. Toll, 615
F. Supp. 1309 (D. Md. 1985) (Title VII case discussed in response to Question No.
15(a)(1), Judiciary Committee Questionnaire), and Smith v. Montgomery County,
150
MD., 607 F. Supp. 1303 (D. Md. 1985) (strip search case discussed in response to
Question 15(a)(1), Judiciary Committee Questionnaire).
As a practitioner, I have handled pro bono approximately five civil rights or civil
rightsrelated cases as lead counsel. In fact, I have been lead counsel in two federal
civil rights cases against police officers, who were alleged to have violated the con-
stitutional rights of criminal defendants. In a third case, I was co-counsel in a state
court civil rights class action brought against the Massachusetts Department of Cor-
rections, a case that I argued from the lower court through to the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts. See Responses to Question 15(b) and (c).
As a federal prosecutor, I spent six years investigating, managing, and prosecut-
ing a variety of federal (and state) criminai cases, including firearms and narcotics
trafficking, homicide, bombing, and bank fraud cases. I also led an urban anti-vio-
lent crime initiative, which involved coordinating investigations and cases among
numerous federal and state law enforcement agencies, including the Boston Police,
Massachusetts State Police, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug En-
forcement Administration, United States Marshal Service, Suffolk County District
Attorney Ralph Martins Office, Massacl:usetts.Attorney General Scott
Harshbargers Office, and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reillys Office.
All of these experiences have enhanced my knowledge and understanding with re-
spect to: (i) the fundamental importance of the rule of law; (ii) making informed and
sensible judgments about the principled and fair application of the law to a given
set of facts; (iii) how to prosecute complex cases successfully; (iv) setting investiga-
tive and prosecutorial priorities; (v) working with people, both in and out of law en-
forcement; (vi) deciding when to use litigation as a necessary enforcement tool, and
when more cooperation-based alternatives may be appropriate to achieve important
governmental and societal objectives; and (vii) the need for vigorous, fair and sen-
sible enforcement of our laws.
Question 2. What do you believe are the greatest civil rights challenges facing our
nation today? What steps would you expect to take to address these challenges?
Answer. I believe that there are many civil rights challenges facing our nation
today. They include, among other things: (i) ending unlawful racial profiling; (ii) en-
suring faith and confidence in the fairness of law enforcement; (iii) opening up op-
portunities for all people, especially those who historically have been excluded; (iv)
protecting the voting rights of all Americans; (v) protecting people from violence or
threatened violence, especially where an immutable characteristic, an irrelevant as-
pect of an individuals personal life, or a persons exercise of a fundamental constitu-
tional right serves as the impetus for violence or threatened violence against them;
and (vi), lowering the temperature, and raising the level of ear national discourse
about race.
If confirmed, I would work with the Attorney General and the career staff of the
Civil Rights Division to enforce existing federal law and implement civil rights ini-
tiatives (e.g., the Attorney Generals racial profiling and voting rights initiatives).
Question 3. What are your priorities for the Civil Rights Division? In what areas
do you think the Division has been lacking or is in need of improvement?
Answer. Out of respect for the Senates role in giving advice and consent on my
nomination, I have not consulted with the career staff of the Civil Rights Division
to determine areas of improvement or to formulate enforcement priorities beyond
those already outlined in these answers. I regard such consultations a prerequisite
to informed decision making in this area. However, I share the Attorney Generals
commitment to the vigorous enforcement of voting rights laws, to eradicating racial
profiling and worker trafficking, and to swift implementation of the Presidents New
Freedom Initiative. If confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, I
would expect the Civil Rights Division to tackle, and effectiveiy deall with, the high
priorities of this Administration.
Question 4. Are there areas where you expect to lead the Civil Rights Division
to take a different approach or set a different course than it has had for the last
eight years under the previous Administration?
Answer. Out of respect for the Senates role in giving advice and consent on my
nomination, I have not consulted with the career staff of the Civil Rights Division.
I think that consultation with them is a prerequisite to informed decision making
about approaches the Civil Rights Division should take with respect to particular
issues. I note that the Attorney General has made clear that racial profiling, voting
rights, worker trafficking and implementation of the New Freedom Initiative will
be priorities for this Administration.
Question 5. As you know, there is significant concern in the civil rights community
and among minority populations generally that this Administration will not be as
151
vigorous as the previous Administration in enforcing the civil rights laws. What as-
surances can you give this Committee that that will not be the case?
Answer. Time and again the President and Attorney General have expressed their
intentions to make civil rights enforcement a priority of this Administration. I would
not be before this Committee as the Presidents nominee to head the Civil Rights
Division if I did not think the President and Attorney General were sincere about
their commitments in this area. I can assure the Committee that, if confirmed, I
would, to the best of my ability, work strenuously to ensure that our nations civil
rights laws are enforced to protect the civil rights of all Americansrich or poor,
black, white or otherwise, religious or non-religious, gay or straight, able bodied or
disabled, native or foreign born.
RACIAL PROFILING & POLICE MISCONDUCT
Question 1. I believe one of the greatesi civil rights challenges facing our nation
today is racial profiling by law enforcement agents. This practice has seriously erod-
ed the important trust between the police and the communities they are charged
to protect and serve. I was pleased when President Bush pledged earlier this year
to end racial profiling in America. Attorney General Ashcroft has said he believes
racial profiling is unconstitutional and has pledged to work to end this practice. I
am working with Rep. John Conyers on legislation to eliminate this practice once
and for all. Youve spent a good part of your career as a prosecutor working with
law enforcement officials to fight crime, particularly urban and youth violence.
(a) Do you agree with the President and Attorney General that racial profiling is
wrong and should be banned?
Answer. Yes.
Question (b). Do you agree that racial profiling is unconstitutional?
Answer. Yes. The ;use of racial stereotypes as the basis for law enforcement action
is wrong and unconstitutional.
Question (c). Do you agree that the federal government has a responsibility to en-
sure that discriminatory police practices like racial profiling are eliminated, not only
at the federal level, but at the state and local levels?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division has played
an important role in helping to combat racial profiling and other police misconduct
by state and local law enforcement agencies. Under the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, or 42 U.S.C. 14141, the Justice Department can
take legal action against a law enforcement agency that has engaged in a pattern
or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their constitutional rights. In addi-
tion, under the Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Justice Department is authorized to
intervene to eliminate a pattern or practice of discrimination based an race, color,
religion, national origin or sex in connection with any law enforcement agency that
receives financial assistance from the Department of Justice.(a) Have you had any
experience with these statutes as an Assistant U.S. Attorney?
Answer. These are civil statutes. I was assigned to the Criminal Division of the
U.S. Attorneys Office and thus have not previously enforced these provisions.
Question (b) Do you agree that Justice Department action pursuant to these stat-
utes is an effective and necessary tool to combat discriminatory policing practices
like racial profiling and other police misconduct?
Answer. I agree that Justice Department enforcement of these statutes has proven
to be an important and effective tool in combating police misconduct.
Question 3. In addition to authority given to the Justice Department to investigate
and prosecute civil rights violations by state and local law enforcement, certain of
our civil rights laws also provide for private rights of action. For example, with
thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country, the Special Litigation
Section does not have the resources to investigate and pursue ali allegations of ra-
cial profiling. I understand that in private practice you represented some inmates
in a federal civil rights class action challenging a state prisons drug testing pro-
gram. You were acting in that case as a private attorney general. Do you agree
that, in addition to the authority of the Justice Department to intervene, an effec-
tive protection and enforcement of our nations civil rights laws has been the ability
of individuals to pursue legal action against law enforcement officials, state actors
or other wrongdoers?
Answer. Yes. The case in which I represented the class of inmates in the custody
of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) was a state court class ac-
tion. The case involved allegations that the DOC violated inmates due process
152
rights guaranteed by the United States Consutution and the Massachusetts Dec-
laration of Rights.
VOTING RIGHTS
Question 1. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most comprehensive civil rights
statutes ever enacted, eliminating literacy tests and poll taxes, outlawing intimida-
tion during the electoral process, and creating various methods for enforcing minor-
ity voting rights. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, has been in-
terpreted by the United States Supreme Court as prohibiting the dilution of minor-
ity voting strength and requiring that electoral district plans provide minority vot-
ers an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Thornburg v. Gingles,
478 U.S. 30 (1986). As a result of the Voting Rights Act and, especially Section 2,
racial and ethnic minorities have enjoyed unparalleled opportunities to participate
in the electoral process, cast meaningful votes, and elect their candidates of choice.
(a) What is your position regarding whether compliance with Section 2 of the Vot-
ing Rights Act can serve as a compelling justification supporting the need to avoid
diluting minority voting strength during redistricting?
Answer. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a fundamental provision for protect-
ing minority voting rights. Section 2 prohibits vote diiut:of, in redistricting and
other contexts, just as Section 5 prevents covered jurisdictions from implementing
redistricting plans that dilute minority voting strength in a manner that has a ret-
rogressive effect on minority voting strength. E.g., Reno v. Bossier Parish Schl. Bd.,
528 U.S. 320, 33536 (2000). As to whether Section 2 compliance is a compelling
interest, my understanding is that the Supreme Court has been willing to assume,
without directly deciding, that Voting Rights Act compliance can be a compelling
state interest. See, e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 976979 (1996). The use of race
is also governed by the Courts decisions in Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. Johnson, and
similar cases.
If confirmed, I would ensure that federal voting laws, including Sections 2 and
5, are consistently and vigorously enforced according to the parameters set forth by
the Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act itself.
Question (b) What is your position regarding the Department of Justices respon-
sibility and authority to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Answer. The Department of Justice, as a federal law enforcement agency with
considerable resources, plays an important role in enforcing Section 2. If any juris-
diction imposes a practice or procedure to dilute minority voting strength, and the
necessary preconditions exist for a viable dilution claim, see Thornburg v. Gingles,
478 U.S. 30, 5051 (1986), that jurisdiction could be subject to suit under Section
2 and to an appropriate remedy, by injunction or otherwise. If confirmed as Assist-
ant Attorney General, I will work to ensure that the Voting Rights Section of the
Civil Rights, Division receives the necessary resources to vigorously enforce Section
2.
Question 2. Confronted with unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitu-
tion, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 3015 309 (1986), Congress enacted
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to banish the blight of racial discrimination in vot-
ing. Id. at 308. Congress concluded that the unsuccessful remedies which it had
prescribed in the past would have to be replaced by sterner and more elaborate
measures in order to satisfy the clear commands of the Fifteenth Amendment. Id.
at 309. The Voting Rights Act, in particular Section 5 of the Act, represent the cul-
mination of Congress efforts to establish these new remedies designed to rid the
country of racial discrimination in voting. Id. at 315.
(a) In 2007, Congress will consider the extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. What is your position regarding the continued need for this
civil rights provision?
Answer. Section 5 continues to be the primary means of ensuring that covered ju-
risdictions preserve and promote minority voting strength. The decision to revisit
Section 5 is a legislative prerogative. I can assure the Senator, however, that, if I
am confirmed, the Civil Rights Division will take seriously its preclearance obliga-
tions under Section 5 for so long as Section 5 is existing law.
Question (b) What is your position regarding the Department of Justices
respensibility and authority to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
Answer. The Voting Rights Act assigns to the Department of Justice the primary
responsibility for enforcing Section 5. The Voting Rights Sectiun of the Civil Rights
Division has authority to review redistrictingplans submitted for preclearance by
covered jurisdictions. If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Voting Rights
Section receives the resources necessary to vigorously enforce Section 5.
153
Question 3. Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the
NVRA) to dismantle obstacles to voter registration such as discriminatory voter
purges and complicated, arbitrary voter registration procedures. The NVRA opened
the electoral process by making voter registration more convenient and by simplify-
ing the registration process, requiring states to provide voter registration at, for ex-
ample, motor vehicle and many social service offices. After many years of declining
voter registration, the NVRA established procedures designed to encourage voter
participation throughout the country. It is clear these procedures have significantly
increased voter registration.
Indeed, the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with reporting the
impact of the NVRA on the administration of elections, reports that in 1996, over
27 million people were registered to vote pursuant to the statute. See Federal Elec-
tion Commissions Report to the Congress on the Impact of the National Voter Reg-
istration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Federal Elections, June 1997, at 27.
Specifically, the Federal Election Commission noted that [t]he mail registration
provisions of the NVRA [under which voters are permitted to register to vote by
mail] caused very few problems for the States and accounted for nearly one third
of all voter registration applications from 1995 through 1996. Id. at 1: Despite the
success and the relative ease in implementing the statute, there have been legisla-
tive attempts over the years to amend the NVRA to remove many of the features
which have made it most successful or to repeal the statute altogether.
(a) What is your position regarding these legislative efforts?
Answer. I am not specifically familiar with the findings of the Federal Election
Commission or the legislative efforts to amend the NVRA. I do agree that increased
voter participation is vital to the continuing health and vibrancy of our democracy.
Question (b) What is your position regarding the Department of Justices respon-
sibility and authority to enforce the NVRA? What priority will you give this respon-
sibility?
Answer. The Department of Justice has authority to pursue declaratory and in-
junctive relief under the NVRA, and to prosecute those found in violation of its pro-
visions. If confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, I would
take seriously my obligation to see that the requirements of NVRA are enforced. I
would make this, along with the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, a priority.
Question 4. The Department of Justice will have substantial responsibilities to en-
force Section 5 of the Veting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, as well as other voting
rights provisions simultaneously. What are your priorities as Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights among the various voting rights enforcement activities?
Answer. Because of the redistricting efforts now ongoing in light of the 2000 cen-
sus, reviewing redistricting plans submitted for preclearance under Section 5 will
be an important and ongoing activity for the Voting Section. The recent allocation
of additional lawyers to that Section will help greatly with this and other voting-
related enforcement efforts. As to the proper order of priority among these efforts,
out of respect for the advice and consent function of the Senate I have not been in-
volved in the daily operation of the Voting Section (or the Civil Rights Division gen-
erally), and thus I am not yet sufficiently familiar with the Voting Sections current
activities to say how best to allocate its resources.
Question 5. Over four million Americans are prohibited from voting in this coun-
try because they are ex-felons. Approximately 1.4 million are African Americans
thats 13% of the adult male African American population. In Alabama and Florida,
about 30 percent of African American males are prohibited from voting under their
state laws.
(a) Do you agree that the impact of felony disenfranchisement on minority popu-
lations is a civil rights issue?
Answer. Any condition or event that adversely affects a protected class of Ameri-
cans could be a civil rights issue. This is especially true when the adverse effect im-
plicates rights as fundamental as the right to vote. So, yes, I believe this is a civil
rights issue.
Question (b) Will you agree to study this issue and consider undertaking appro-
priate civil rights enforcement action or proposing legislative remedies?
Answer. Yes, I believe that this issue is worthy of study. If I am confirmed by
the Senate for the position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, I would
study the issue and would consider taking appropriate action. If confirmed, I also
would enforce existing civil rights law without hesitation; proposing legislation,
however, is not my prerogative as a law enforcement official.
154
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SCHUMER
Question 1. If confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Divi-
sion, will you give the enforcement of the laws against clinic violence and obstruc-
tion the same priority that it has been given in the last six years?
Can you commit to enforce FACE, both civilly and criminally, as vigor-
ously as your predecessors? That is, can you commit not to weaken the
standards of prosecution or to exclude categorically types of cases that have
previously been successful in the courts?
Answer. I cannot speak authoritatively as to how vigorously the prior Administra-
tion enforced FACE. However, if confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights, it would be my job to enforce the nations laws, of which the FACE statute
is an important one. No woman seeking constitutionally protected services should
fear being threatened or coerced. Accordingly, if the conduct of anyone violates the
law regarding the access of women to reproductive health services, I would enforce
the law vigorously.
As Assistant Attorney General, will you allow Department of Justice
(DOJ) personnel whe have gained expertise in the area of clinic access to
continrle to work in this area if they so desire?.
Answer. Having served for several years as an Assistant United States Attorney,
and having been a litigator for almost 17 years, I believe as a general matter that
experience and expertise are important factors in decisions regarding personnel as-
signments.
Out of respect for the Senates advice and consent function, I have not reviewed,
nor have had the benefit of, a careful review of the Department of Justice personnel
who have gained expertise in the area of clinic access. I am unaware of any propos-
als to reassign such personnel and have no such plans of my own. It would not be
appropriate for me to make any additional statements, howevef, concerning the fu-
ture employment status of Department personnel whom I have not met, and with
respect to whose performance I have no knowledge.
Question 2. The National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers.
In response to violence against reproductive health care providers generally and the
murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian specifically, Attorney General Janet Reno formed the
National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers in November 1998.
Will you work to maintain the Department of Justices Task Force on Violence
Against Health Care Providers and work to ensure that it has the resources it reeds
to cont;nue to be effective? Do you anticipate reducing the Task Forces resources
in any way? How and why? (National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care
Providers, Report on Federal Efforts to Prevent and Prosecute Clinic Violence 1998
2000,1]
Will you commit to maintaining or increasing the size of the Task Force?
Answer. I believe that inter-agency coordination is an important part of effective
law enforcement efforts. The National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care
Providers has effectively coordinated law enforcement efforts related to FACE. If
confirmed, I would seek to ensure that it has the resources necessary to continue
its work.
One of the Task Forces main objectives is to coordinate national inves-
tigation and prosecution of incidents of abortion violence, focusing on con-
nections that may exist between perpetrators of anti-abortion crimes. Will
you continue to support such efforts? [National Task Force on Violence
Against Health Care Providers, Report on Federal Efforts to Prevent and
Prosecute Clinic Violence 19982000,5]
Answer. Out of respect for the Senates role in giving advice and consent, I have
not reviewed or assessed the details of the work of the Task Force. I do believe that
it is important to coordinate enforcement of FACE on a national level and that the
Task Force is an important vehicle for accomplishing this goal. I would continue
those efforts.
Question 3. Crack/Powder: Can you give me your views on the disparity in sen-
tencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses?
Answer. In United States v. Louis Andrade, I argued that the cocaine base sen-
tencing guideline is constitutional, and prevailed in that argument in both the dis-
trict court (Gertner, J.) and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
See 94 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1996) (Lynch, J.). I agree with those decisions.
I am concerned about the conditions that contribute to the number of young men
of color who are convicted of selling crack cocaine, and sentenced under the cocaine
base sentencing guideline. I am even more concerned about the fact thatas re-
155
flected in the congressional testimony in connection with the promulgation of the
cocaine base sentencing guidelinedisadvantaged, urban communities of color are
disproportionately (indeed almost exclusively) devastated by the crack cocaine trade
and violence associated with that trade. See United States v. Singleton, 29 F.3d 733,
74041 (lst Cir.), cert. denied 1:5 S.Ct. 647 (1994).