Senate narrowly votes to advance controversial judicial nominee Thomas Farr

All 49 Senate Democrats voted against Farr's nomination, saying he supported measures that they say disenfranchise African-American voters. Democrats cite his role providing legal counsel to the North Carolina Republican Party on the state's congressional map, which was struck down this year as a partisan gerrymander.

Sen. Jeff Flake was the only Republican to oppose Farr. The Arizona senator, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and is retiring at the end of his term in January, made his pledge not to back judicial nominees about two weeks ago, pushing for a floor vote on the bill to protect special counsels such as Robert Mueller.

Democrats had hoped Sen. Time Scott, a South Carolina Republican and the Senate's sole black GOP member, would vote against Farr, but he voted to invoke cloture Wednesday, a procedural step advancing the nomination to a final floor vote.

Democrats have pointed to Farr representing North Carolina in a challenge to the state's 2013 voting law, which included a controversial voter ID provision that a federal appeals court deemed was enacted "with racially discriminatory intent" and targeted black voters.

"Every American should be alarmed by the attempt to confirm a nominee with Farr's egregious record on voting rights, particularly with the Republican agenda to maintain power by limiting access to the ballot now on full display," Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Monday.

Scott's opposition to specific Trump nominees has led to the pulling of at least one other nomination.

When asked about the Farr nomination on Tuesday he said he's "doing my homework."

In July, the White House withdrew the nomination of Circuit Court hopeful Ryan Bounds moments before the nominee was to face his Senate confirmation vote following Scott's decision to raise concerns to Senate leaders. Scott's concerns revolved around the content of Bounds' writings -- which critics labeled racially insensitive -- while at Stanford and the fact that Bounds did not disclose the writings to a bipartisan committee of attorneys in Oregon that had recommended him for Ninth Circuit job.

Let's block ads! (Why?)