Order Code RS21734
February 10, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Votes Other Than Favorably on Judicial
Nominations, 1939-2003
Mitchel A. Sollenberger
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Judicial nominations are submitted to the Senate by the President. Once a
nomination is submitted, the Senate refers it to the Judiciary Committee. Either the
Senate or the Senate Judiciary Committee may choose not to act when considering the
nomination. If the Judiciary Committee does act and schedules a vote on a nominee, any
of four motions can be made. In most instances, the motion is made to report favorably.
The committee could also vote on a motion to table the nomination, to report the
nomination without recommendation, or to report the nomination unfavorably. The
nomination moves on to the full Senate if the committee votes to report it favorably, to
report it without recommendation, or to report it unfavorably. A nomination that is
tabled is effectively killed. The Senate may choose to vote on a judicial nomination at
anytime. If the Senate does vote on the nominee, it may vote to confirm, reject, table,
or recommit. A vote to recommit will send the nomination back to committee. After
a vote to reject, the Secretary of the Senate will attest to a resolution of disapproval and
transmit it to the President. In the case of a vote to table, the nomination will be
returned to the President by the Secretary of the Senate at the end of the session.
This report identifies 19 instances in which the Senate or the Senate Judiciary
Committee voted to reject, table, or report other than favorably on district or circuit
court judicial nominations in the 64 years from 1939 through 2003. Out of those 19
judicial nominations that received a vote other than favorably, two were eventually
confirmed. Judicial nominations that did not receive Senate or committee action are
not counted and thus are not included in the report. Senate and Senate Judiciary
Committee actions on judicial nominations are discussed more generally in CRS Report
RL31635, Judicial Nomination Statistics: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2003,
by Denis Steven Rutkus and Mitchel A. Sollenberger. This report will be updated if the
Senate or the Senate Judiciary Committee votes other than favorably on another judicial
nomination.
Although the Senate historically has confirmed the majority of the thousands of U.S.
circuit court and district court nominations submitted to it, some nominations do not
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
receive Senate confirmation.1 It is important to note that at each step in the confirmation
process, it is possible that a judicial nomination will see no further action. Neither the
Judiciary Committee nor the full Senate is compelled to act on the nomination, and
nominations that receive no action are eventually returned to the President.
Once the President submits a judicial nomination to the Senate, it is referred to the
Judiciary Committee. In the next step in the confirmation process, the nominee may
receive a committee hearing. The chair then may schedule a committee meeting to vote
on the nomination or decide to take no further action. In most instances, the committee
votes to report nominations favorably, but in a small number of cases, the committee has
voted to report other than favorably. The committee can vote to table the nomination, to
report the nomination without recommendation, or to report the nomination unfavorably.
The nomination moves to the full Senate if a majority of the committee agrees to any one
of the motions to report.2 A nomination fails to reach the Senate floor on a tie vote and
is considered rejected.
The Senate typically votes on nominations reported out of the Judiciary Committee.
The Senate may vote to confirm, vote to reject, vote to recommit, or vote to table, which
has the effect of killing the nomination. If the Senate rejects the nomination, it is returned
to the President with a resolution of disapproval.3 In the case of a vote to table, the
nomination is returned to the President by the Secretary of the Senate at the end of the
session. A vote to recommit will send the nominee back to committee. If a judicial
nomination does not receive a Senate vote, the nomination ultimately will either be
withdrawn by the President or returned to the President by the Secretary of the Senate
upon a Senate adjournment or recess of more than 30 days.
This report identifies 19 instances from the 76th Congress to the end of the first
session of the 108th Congress in which U.S. circuit court and district court nominations
either were rejected on the floor of the Senate or received a vote other than to report
favorably by the Judiciary Committee.4 The Senate did not vote to table a nomination
during this period. Judicial nominations that did not receive Senate or committee action
are not considered and therefore are not included in the report. Attached is a table
identifying instances in which the Senate voted to reject a judicial nomination or the
Judiciary Committee voted to:
1 For statistics on the number of confirmations during the 1945-2003 time period, see CRS Report
RL32122, Judicial Nomination Statistics: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1945-1976, by
Mitchel A. Sollenberger; and CRS Report RL31635, Judicial Nomination Statistics: U.S. District
and Circuit Courts, 1977-2003, by Denis Steven Rutkus and Mitchel A. Sollenberger. For
information on judicial nominations from 1939 to 1945, see biographies of federal judges at the
Federal Judicial Center website ([http://www.fjc.gov/newweb/jnetweb.nsf/hisj]), visited Feb. 9,
2004.
2 If a motion to table the nomination succeeds, or if the committee decides not to report, the
nomination remains in committee.
3 According to Senate Rule XXXI, rejected nominations “shall not be returned by the Secretary
to the President until the expiration of the time limit for making a motion to reconsider,” which
is three days after the confirmation vote is held.
4 The 76th Congress was the earliest in which Judiciary Committee votes could be found in the
Congressional Record or the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Legislative Calendar.

---

CRS-3
! table a nomination;
! reject a motion to report favorably;
! reject a motion to report without recommendation;
! approve a motion to report without recommendation;
! reject a motion to report unfavorably; or
! approve a motion to report unfavorably (i.e., reporting adversely).
The table is arranged chronologically by the Congress in which each nomination was
received in the Senate. From left to right, columns one, two, and three identify the
Congress, nominee, and court of each nominee. Columns four through seven provide the
Judiciary Committee vote on each nomination, stating the type of vote, vote breakdown,
and date of the vote. Column eight provides information concerning what occurred in the
Senate after the Judiciary Committee voted. The table lists all 19 circuit court or district
court nominations from 1939 through 2003 that were rejected by the Senate or that
received a vote other than to report favorably by the Judiciary Committee. One
nomination is still pending before the Senate.
Senatorial courtesy was the reason for rejection in six of the first seven cases of
Judiciary Committee votes on judicial nominations that were other than to report
favorably.5 Floyd H. Roberts, nominated to be U.S. district court judge for western
Virginia, was the first judicial nominee reported unfavorably by the committee and
rejected by the Senate within the 1939-2003 time period. The committee adversely
reported Roberts in 1939 on the grounds that his nomination was “personally offensive”
to the two Virginia Senators.6 As was the tradition under senatorial courtesy at that time,
Roberts was adversely reported to the Senate, where he was rejected by a vote of 72 to 9.
In each of the other five cases in which senatorial courtesy was the stated reason for
objecting to a judicial nomination, the opposing Senator stated that the nominee was
“personally obnoxious.”7 In one instance, the nomination was not reported out of
committee.8 The other four nominations were reported adversely and rejected by voice
vote in the Senate.9 The remaining 13 nominees received either political, ideological, or
professional opposition.
5 The American Congressional Dictionary defines senatorial courtesy as “[t]he Senate’s practice
of declining to confirm a presidential nominee for an office in the state of a senator of the
president’s party unless that senator approves. Sometimes called ‘the courtesy of the Senate,’
the practice is a customary one and not always adhered to. A senator sometimes invokes the
custom by declaring that the nominee is personally obnoxious or personally objectionable to
him.” See Walter Kravitz, Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary
(Washington: CQ Press, 2001), p. 231.
6 National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 46, Records of the U.S. Senate,
76th Cong., Records of Executive Proceedings, Nomination Files, Judiciary Committee,
Hearings on Nomination of Floyd H. Roberts (1939), p. 84.
7 The nominees were James V. Allred, M. Neil Andrews, Carroll D. Switzer, Joseph Drucker, and
Cornelius J. Harrington.
8 National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 46, Records of the U.S. Senate,
78th Cong., Records of Executive Proceedings, Nomination Files, Judiciary Committee, James
V. Allred, Blue Slip (1943); and Hearings on Nomination of James V. Allred (1943), pp. 5-7.
9 See Congressional Record, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 9, 1950, pp. 12104-12106; and
Congressional Record, 82nd Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 9, 1951, pp. 12838-12840.

---

CRS-4
Votes Other Than Favorably on Judicial Nominations, 1939- 2003
Judiciary Committee Motion
(6)
(7)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Report Without
Report
(8)
Congress
Nominee
Court
Table
Report Favorably
Recommendation
Unfavorably
Final Outcome
76th
Floyd H. Roberts
U.S. District Court,
—
3-14, 02/01/39 a
—
14-3, 02/01/39 b
Rejected, 72-9,
Western Virginia
02/06/39
78th
James V. Allred
U.S. Circuit Court of
—
9-9, 03/22/43 c
—
—
Returned, 07/08/43
Appeals, Fifth Circuit
79th
Nathan Ross Margold
U.S. District Court for
—
6-6, 07/30/45 d
—
—
Returned, 08/01/45
the District of Columbia
81st
M. Neil Andrews
U.S. District Court,
—
1-9, 07/31/50 e
—
9-1, 07/31/50 f
Rejected, voice vote,
Northern Georgia
08/09/50
81st
Carroll D. Switzer
U.S. District Court,
—
0-10, 07/31/50 g
—
10-0, 07/31/50 h
Rejected, voice vote,
Southern Iowa
08/09/50
82nd
Joseph Drucker
U.S. District Court,
—
Defeated, 09/17/51 i
—
10/08/51 i
Rejected, voice vote,
Northern Illinois
10/09/51
82nd
Cornelius J. Harrington
U.S. District Court,
—
Defeated, 09/17/51 j
—
10/08/51 j
Rejected, voice vote,
Northern Illinois
10/09/51
94th
William B. Poff
U.S. District Court,
9-0, 05/05/76 k
—
—
—
Withdrawn, 06/07/76
Western Virginia
95th
Robert F. Collins
U.S. District Court,
—
5-5, 04/14/78 l
—
—
Confirmed, voice
Eastern Louisiana
vote, 05/17/78
13-1, 05/16/78 l
96th
Charles B. Winberry, Jr.
U.S. District Court,
—
6-8, 03/04/80 m
—
—
Withdrawn, 08/06/80
North Carolina
99th
Daniel A. Manion
U.S. Court of Appeals,
—
9-9, 05/08/86 n
11-6, 05/08/86 n
—
Confirmed, 48-46,
Seventh Circuit
06/26/86
99th
Jefferson B. Sessions
U.S. District Court,
—
8-10, 06/05/86 o
9-9, 06/05/86 o
—
Returned, 12/20/85
Southern Alabama

---

CRS-5
Judiciary Committee Motion
(6)
(7)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Report Without
Report
(8)
Congress
Nominee
Court
Table
Report Favorably
Recommendation
Unfavorably
Final Outcome
100th
Susan W. Liebeler
U.S. Court of Appeals,
—
6-7, 02/23/88 p
8-5, 02/23/88 p
—
Returned, 10/22/88
Federal Circuit
100th
Bernard H. Siegan
U.S. Court of Appeals,
—
6-8, 07/14/88 q
7-7, 07/14/88 q
—
Withdrawn, 09/16/88
Ninth Circuit
102nd
Kenneth L. Ryskamp
U.S. Court of Appeals,
—
6-8, 04/11/91 r
7-7, 04/11/91 r
—
Returned, 08/02/91
Eleventh Circuit
106th
Ronnie White
U.S. District Court,
—
12-6, 07/22/99 s
—
—
Rejected, 45-54,
Eastern Missouri
10/05/99 t
107th
Charles W. Pickering,
U.S. Court of Appeals,
—
9-10, 03/14/02 u
9-10, 03/14/02 u
9-10, 03/14/02 u
Returned, 11/20/02
Sr.
Fifth Circuit
107th
Priscilla Owen
U.S. Court of Appeals,
—
9-10, 09/05/02 v
9-10, 09/05/02 v
9-10, 09/05/02 v
Returned, 11/20/02
Fifth Circuit
108th
J. Leon Holmes
U.S. District Court,
—
—
10-9, 05/01/03 w
—
Pending
Eastern Arkansas
Sources: The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States from the 76th and 77th Congresses, the final committee calendars of the 78th to 106th Congresses,
and the daily editions of the Congressional Record for the 107th and 108th Congresses. Various newspaper articles were also used.
a. Roberts — Congressional Record, 80th Cong., 1st sess., July 1, 1947, p. 7990.
b. Roberts — Ibid.
c. Allred — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 78th Cong., 1st sess., p. 5.
d. Margold — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 79th Cong., 1st sess., p. 86. For information concerning the reasons for the committee vote, see Local
Section, “Judge Margold Dies at 48; Funeral Will Be Held Today,” Washington Post, Dec. 17, 1947, p. B2.
e. Andrews — Neither the Legislative and Executive Calendar nor the Judiciary Committee nor the Congressional Record reports a vote total for Andrews. See Legislative and Executive
Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., p. 454.
f. Andrews — The Legislative and Executive Calendar notes that Chairman Pat McCarran reported Andrews out of committee adversely. CRS assumes that the final committee vote
was for a motion to report unfavorably. For information concerning the committee vote, see “4 Truman Choices Rejected Sharply In Senate Rebuffs,” The New York Times, Aug.
10, 1950, p. 1.
g. Switzer — Neither the Legislative and Executive Calendar nor the Judiciary Committee nor the Congressional Record reports a vote total for Switzer. See Legislative and Executive
Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., p. 454.
h. Switzer — The Legislative and Executive Calendar notes that Chairman Pat McCarran reported Switzer out of committee adversely. CRS assumes that the final committee vote was
for a motion to report unfavorably. For information concerning the committee vote, see “4 Truman Choices Rejected Sharply In Senate Rebuffs,” The New York Times, Aug.
10, 1950, p. 1.

---

CRS-6
i. Drucker — The Legislative and Executive Calendar notes that on Sept. 17, 1951, a motion to report favorably was defeated and that a motion to report unfavorably was also defeated;
however, on Oct. 8, 1951, the calendar notes that the committee disapproved Drucker’s nomination but then reported him out on the same day. This third vote, although not stated
in the calendar, tends to suggest that the committee considered a second motion to report unfavorably. See Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 82nd
Cong., 1st sess., p. 553.
j. Harrington — The Legislative and Executive Calendar notes that on Sept. 17, 1951, a motion to report favorably was defeated and that a motion to report unfavorably was also defeated;
however, on Oct. 8, 1951, the calendar notes that the committee disapproved Harrington’s nomination but then reported him out on the same day. This third vote, although not
stated in the calendar, tends to suggest that the committee considered a second motion to report unfavorably. See Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary,
82nd Cong., 1st sess., p. 553.
k. Poff — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 247. For more information concerning the committee vote, see Congressional
Quarterly, Inside Congress, “‘Senatorial Courtesy’ Derails Ford Judgeship Nomination,” Congressional Quarterly, May 8, 1976, p. 1124.
l. Collins — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 212.
m. Winberry — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong., 1st sess., p. 206.
n. Manion — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 261. For information concerning the committee vote, see Eric Effron, “Setback
for Manion,” The National Law Journal, May 19, 1986, p. 2.
o. Sessions — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 272. For information concerning the committee vote, see David Price, “Heflin
Votes Crucial in Defeat of Denton-Backed Judicial Nomination,” The Associated Press, June 6, 1986.
p. Liebeler — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 192. For information concerning the committee vote, see Christopher Ladd
and Terence Moran, “Nominees Liebeler, Siegan Still Have Long Way to Go,” Legal Times, Feb. 29, 1988, p. 4.
q. Siegan — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 193. For information concerning the committee vote, see Linda Greenhouse,
“Panel Rejects Court Nominee, Ending Bitter Battle,” The New York Times, July 15, 1988, p. A12.
r. Ryskamp — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., p. 165. For information concerning the committee vote, see Neil A. Lewis,
“Committee Rejects Bush Nominee to Key Appellate Court in South,” The New York Times, April 12, 1991, p. A1.
s. White — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 1st sess., p. 152. For information concerning the committee vote, see Sean Scully, “Senate
rejects Clinton bench nominee; Black Missouri judge had opposed death penalty; Democrats charge racism,” The Washington Times, October 6, 1999, p. A6.
t. White — Legislative and Executive Calendar, Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., 1st sess., p. 152.
u. Pickering — As of Feb. 9, 2004, the final committee calendar for the 107th Congress had not been published. See Jennifer A. Dlouhy, “Democrats Defeat Pickering on Party-Line
Vote,” CQ Daily Monitor, March 15, 2002, p. 1.
v. Owen — As of Feb. 9, 2004, the final committee calendar for the 107th Congress had not been published. See Jennifer A. Dlouhy, “Republicans Vow Revenge as Owen Nomination
is Defeated,” CQ Daily Monitor, Sept. 9, 2002, p. 8.
w. Holmes — For information concerning the committee vote, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, May 1, 2003, p. D436.

---