January 19, 2001

TESTIMONY FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT

From: Harriett Woods, former Lieutenant Governor of Missouri

Many Missourians were shocked and dismayed when they learned of the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft for U.S. Attorney General. Americans elsewhere, including some former Senate colleagues, probably know him less well than we do. They need to be informed about instances where he used public office to push particular ideological views rather than administer justice in an evenhanded manner. They need to learn more about his temperament and values.

I observed Senator Ashcroft fairly closely as a state senator and as lieutenant governor for four of the eight years John Ashcroft served as Missouri's governor. (We were the "odd couple"--a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican.) President-Elect Bush described him as "a man of deep conviction" who would be dedicated to"the impartial administration of justice." He is indeed a man of deep conviction, but in Missouri, he increasingly has been seen as an extremist who can be ruthless for political ends. Former U.S. Senator Tom Eagleton reacted to the nomination by saying: "John Danforth would have been my first choice. John Ashcroft would have been my last choice."

I'm constantly asked to give any example when he administered the law differently because of ideology. In 1989, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health opened up regulation of abortion to the states. Governor Ashcroft immediately named a "Task Force for Mothers and Unborn Children" to come up with recommendations. He was quoted in the press as setting for his ultimate goal prohibiting all abortions. He named only the most dedicated pro-life advocates. The Speaker and Senate Pro Tem of the General Assembly--both of whom had voted pro-life--publicly protested. They said the task force would be "slanted to one side" and would not provide "the necessary balance that reflects the feelings of the state" nor all necessary expertise to look at health issues for mothers and children. They refused to participate because the governor insisted that all task force members oppose abortion. The proposal turned into controversy. Whatever benefit a task force might have had was lost and the group produced little that was usable.

This kind of insistence on rigid conformity to preset values may please his supporters, but it makes Missourians very uncomfortable. It should concern the U.S. Senate. It was under Governor Ashcroft's watch in 1989 that state troopers were deployed to prevent a father from removing his daughter to another state for further medical opinions on whether to maintain her on life support. The father had a court order in hand issued by a judge after a full hearing that included supportive testimony from doctors and a Catholic ethicist. Yet he was denied the right even to visit his child alone. "Right to Life" forces had pressed the state to keep the young woman alive even though doctors described her as being in a vegetative state. They insisted the state enforce their views on the family. Missouri obliged. The family was dragged through emotional hell for years until the 1992 election brought in a new administration that declared the state should stop interfering.

Gov. Ashcroft also was willing to flout the law when he didn't like its interpretation. In 1985, shortly after Senator Ashcroft and I were separately elected to the top two statewide offices, he called me to a private meeting and said he would be glad to give me useful things to do, but in exchange I must agree not to serve as interim governor in his absence from the state. This struck me as political paranoia. It suggested I was not to be trusted. I assured him I had no intention of misusing executive power in his absence and wanted very much to work with him. But I could not accede to his unilateral decision. The Missouri constitution was very clear. Not only does it provide that the lieutenant governor assumes office upon death or disability of the governor, but a separate provision provides for the lieutenant governor to act as governor on the governor's "absence from the state."

Governor Ashcroft said he did not accept that interpretation; he withdrew his offer to include me in state activities, and shortly afterward left the state without notifying either my office or that of the Secretary of State as always had been customary. The situation was ridiculous; if he thought the provision no longer necessary, the proper course would be to propose a change in the law, or seek a court ruling. As tension increased, we hired our own counsel, warning that we would go to the media if necessary. At the last minute before his next trip, a proper notice was slipped under our door, and there were no further problems. But he renewed the confrontation with Mel Carnahan, who succeeded me as lieutenant governor, poisoning the relationship. This time, he did seek the opinion of the state courts. The judge affirmed the governor's powers, but recommended that he should use his discretion to work with the lieutenant governor to keep state business running smoothly. That didn't happen until he left office.

That story may seem far removed from weighty issues of civil rights, abortion and church-state relationships that will be debated in this nomination, but Senator Ashcroft's behavior raises worrisome questions about his temperament as the leader of a department that inevitably is going to be involved in controversy. What will be his willingness to follow a law he considers wrong, or one that he says he is following but interprets differently than prevailing view?

In 1978, when John Ashcroft was Missouri Attorney General, he sued the National Organization for Women because it conducted a boycott of Missouri (and other states) for failing to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. What was notable about this use of the anti-trust laws to control speech was his persistence in appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, using major state resources, even when he lost in the federal district court and the 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and even though legal scholars discouraged the effort. His spokesperson denied he acted because of his personal opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, but it must be noted that in 1977, Janet Ashcroft appeared to testify against ratification of the ERA at a hearing in the Missouri Senate, a very conspicuous action for the wife of the attorney general of the state.

Senator Ashcroft views government and public service as vehicles for achieving certain ideologically shaped goals. He is a man of deep convictions. I respect him for that. But conviction that fails to respect the convictions of others can be dangerous. He has stated that "You can legislate morality." This is not a majority viewpoint in Missouri. Missourians expressed concern in 1999 when Senator Ashcroft gave the commencement speech and received an honorary degree at Bob Jones University. Many were embarassed when he compounded the problem by denying he was aware of certain intolerant positions of that institution. His 1999 Christmas card listed the Bob Jones appearance as a highlight of his year. Other politicians have spoken at this university, but it is difficult to conceive that someone bragging about such a connection would be named to head the Justice Department. Especially not when nerves are so raw over alleged voting irregularities involving minorities.

In 1988, while he was governor, John Ashcroft was one of only two members of a 40 member federal commission studying the plight of minorities in America who refused to sign the panel's final report. Members included former Presidents Carter and Ford and Coretta Scott King. Ashcroft was quoted as saying he believed the findings were too negative. I cannot judge his reasons for abstaining, but his action in isolating himself from majority opinion is bound to set off alarms among those most likely to need a Justice Department ready to intervene on their behalf. It's not enough to say that one will enforce the letter of the law; the spirit can be a major determinant of whether anything really happens.

Governor Ashcroft and I were two of the three members of Missouri's Board of Public Buildings which approves construction contracts. It was obvious in dealing with the proposals that minority and female contractors were not getting an adequate share of business from the state, despite existence of many small contractors seeking to participate. It seemed worthwhile to look for ways to improve the situation. Governor Ashcroft was not interested. So long as we met minimum requirements, he was satisfied. The lieutenant governor's office finally acted on its own, refusing to sign one contract that had bundled together many small jobs until the contractor agreed to institute a minority training effort.

It sometimes seems, listening to conflicting testimony, that there are two John Ashcrofts. I understand this. Senator Ashcroft was unfailingly polite in our personal exchanges. He maintained an amiable, open countenance with the public and his peers, but he could be fierce when angered and had a reputation for "getting even" with those who crossed him. A sense of righteousness and ordained destiny can make it hard to brook criticism; On at least one occasion. the governor lashed out with such anger at a critic that he had to be dragged away. I mention this not to engage in personal attack, but because this temperament spilled over into his conduct when opposing presidential nominees. The senators surely are aware that too often this turned into unnecessary vilification and petty picking at minor items, rather than focusing on issues of competence. (Judge Margaret Morrow, Dr. David Satcher, James Hormel, Dr. Henry Foster, Clarence Sundram, among others).

It is unfortunate that Governor Ashcroft has antagonized a majority of African Americans and women. Despite recent claims, Governor Ashcroft did not have an outstanding appointment record in this area. In eight years, out of 121 judicial appointments, he appointed 12 women, or 10%, and 8 African Americans, or 6.6%. His successor would triple those percentages in short order. It must also be noted that Governor Ashcroft did not appoint his first woman to the appellate court until September 1987, more than halfway through his first term, and only then after a major onslaught of negative publicity about his poor record. As for women in appointed executive positions, in 1986 Governor Ashcroft tied with George Wallace of Alabama in having the fewest women in his cabinet --just one. He never increased that number.

The issue isn't just appointments. Women and minorities have been disproportionately at odds with Senator Ashcroft because those rising from their midst often have policy differences with him, which shouldn't be surprising given that their life experiences are so different. He is wedded to the values of the Assembly of God church and has little tolerance for these differences. He is not a racist in the usual sense. It's just that he is so locked into the rightness of his views that he sees spokespersons for those who differ as enemies to be destroyed rather than opponents to be debated. Senator Ashcroft is constantly described as a man of integrity, but what does that mean if it leaves him free to use government office to destroy the reputation of others for political expedience.

That is what many Missourians believe he did to Ronnie White. It wasn't just African Americans who were offended. He blocked a highly respected Missouri Supreme Court judge from a federal position through deliberate misrepresentation and character assassination in order to create a law and order issue for his race against Mel Carnahan. He played the race card with court-ordered desegregation to advance his prospects to become governor. Someone rooted in religious values should set an example. Instead, his actions worsened race relations in a state that continues to struggle to improve interracial understanding. They diminished respect for justice and the courts at a time when more than ever we need to restore confidence in the law and the courts. They lowered the tone of debate between candidates and political parties. John Ashcroft polarized Missourians; his appointment will do the same for the country.

Missourians gave Senator Ashcroft a majority of their votes many times. Clearly he was a popular politician. Attitudes began to change in the past couple of years as he moved farther and farther out of the mainstream. The common wisdom about the 2000 senatorial race in Missouri is that it turned on a sympathy vote for a dead governor. Not so simple. Mel Carnahan won because Senator Ashcroft had alienated moderate Republicans and independents long before the tragedy occurred. They rejected views and actions they considered to be increasingly extreme. There was a clear choice between Carnahan values and Ashcroft positions. He had lost the support of Missourians.

So it boils down to this. What does it really mean when a nominee with this record promises to enforce the law? In 1999, Senator Ashcroft campaigned in Missouri for a losing statewide initiative to permit carrying of concealed weapons. He told us over and over that he wants to make abortion a crime even in the case of rape and incest. He did his utmost to impede family planning and availability of contraceptives. He has blocked confirmation of qualified moderate judges. What priorities will he choose, what court cases will he support; what judicial nominees will he promote? Will he fairly serve all of us in this most important position? Senator Ashcroft says he will. His record in Missouri suggests otherwise.

Senator Ashcroft has a long record of service in public office. It would be appropriate for the new administration to make use of his abilities. But not as attorney general of the United States.

# # #