We, Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), believe lawyers and civil rights organizations around the country must join in solidarity to ensure that every judicial nominee, as well as the nomination process, aligns with the principles essential to a fair and unbiased federal court system.

The federal judiciary’s decisions often determine whether minority groups are treated equally under the law.

The federal judiciary plays an integral role in advancing the work of civil rights and maintaining the legitimacy of political institutions in the United States. Their job in adjudicating the constitutionality of laws affects whether minority groups are treated equally under the law.

There have been many discriminatory laws passed throughout this nation’s history. If the federal judiciary does not work to strike down these laws as unconstitutional, the work of civil rights advocates will erode and the legitimacy of our political institutions will be called into question.

Judicial nominations should be evaluated against basic “good government” principles.

We believe that each nominee, and the process through which the nominee is confirmed, should be evaluated against a well-defined set of principles.

If a nominee or the confirmation process does not adhere to one or more of the following principles, we must univocally denounce the nominee to ensure the protection of civil rights.

1. Equality.
   The nominee must represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. to ensure that equitable judicial proceedings are practiced. Currently, about 39% of the United States identify as a people of color or a member of a minority group, yet only 25% of circuit court judges are people of color and only 29% of district court judges are people of color.

2. Citizen Participation.
   Citizen participation is important in the advancement of civil rights and the protection of the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Each judicial nominee should have the support of both of their state's senators. The blue slip process is a Senate practice requiring that the Judiciary Committee not hold a confirmation hearing for potential judges without approval from the candidate’s home-state senators. It is the final opportunity to ensure that the Senators and their constituencies support the nomination of the candidate. Senate leadership has started to move nominees forward over the objection of home-state senators.

3. Rule of Law and Due Process.
   Every nominee should be qualified to serve on the federal judiciary and receive a minimum ABA rating of "qualified." Since Eisenhower, all but one president has utilized the ABA’s process prior to publicly announcing its nominations. The American Bar Association, which traditionally screens the candidates prior to their nomination (but under the current Administration, has done the screening after nominees are publicly announced), unanimously rated two of the 51 nominees it reviewed as "not qualified." Of the roughly 1,800 nominees the organization vetted from 1989 to 2016, just two had unanimously been voted as "not qualified" by the panel.  

4. Free and Fair Elections.
   This principle ensures that a judicial nominee does not have a record of obstructing the electoral process. This would run contrary to the goal of civil rights to ensure that all people, regardless of race, have equal voting access. If a judicial nominee has a record of supporting discriminatory voting laws, the legitimacy of our democratic institutions will be called into question.

5. Control of Abuse of Power.
   It is of the utmost importance that we insulate the judiciary from politicization and partisanship. The framers of the Constitution understood the importance of checks and balances – this past year has been a testament to the invaluable role the courts play as a check on the executive branch. If this Administration nominates politicized judges who will only rule based on their political ideology, they may not be able to provide this vital check. They will allow the current Administration and his political agents to freely abuse their power to advance their political agenda rather than objectively adjudicating cases based on their knowledge of the law.

Many of the current Administration’s judicial nominees do not reflect these principles.

This Administration’s nominees to date do not reflect our country’s gender, racial, and ethnic diversity. Approximately 80% of this Administration’s judicial nominees have been white men even though only 31% of the U.S. identify as white and male.

Further, the Trump Administration, in coordination with some Members of Congress, cannot be allowed to undermine the confirmation process and appoint unqualified judicial nominees.

It is our job to hold the government accountable for these actions.

In today’s politically tumultuous climate, the future of our democracy seems uncertain. To ensure a stable future for civil rights, we will continue to work with Members of Congress to safeguard the objectivity and integrity of the federal courts. This is not a task that can be completed alone, but one that will only be successful through unified action amongst a variety of national civil rights and government accountability groups.

To ensure that the U.S. continues to progress as an equitable nation, please join us on this mission to protect the independence and effectiveness of our federal courts.