Clinton’s Choice For Rights Chief Is Withdrawing
|
|
President Clinton’s latest choice to be the Justice Department’s civil rights chief withdrew from consideration today, apparently because of strong opposition from many black members of Congress. The White House had been hoping to nominate John Payton, the corporation counsel for the District of Columbia, to be the new Assistant Attorney General for civil rights, and to have him rebuild and reinvigorate a division that had been greatly reduced in importance during 12 years of Republican Administrations. Mr. Payton’s decision to withdraw his name is the latest setback to the President’s efforts to establish a strong new direction in civil rights protections and to fill a position that has been open for nearly a year. In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Mr. Payton, a black lawyer who has argued major civil rights cases, described his decision as a sad one but gave no reasons for it. Officials in both the Administration and in Congress, however, said that the White House had decided not to force the nomination after many members of the Congressional Black Caucus pressed their opposition to Mr. Payton because of their uncertainty about his views on creating Congressional districts with a majority of black voters. By this account, Justice Department officials then told Mr. Payton that the situation was worsening for him, and he agreed to withdraw. At least a dozen of the 40 members of the Caucus told White House canvassers that they remained opposed to the Payton nomination, a senior Administration official said. The black lawmakers were uneasy about Mr. Payton’s view of the Voting Rights Act because many of them were elected from districts created under the law. Early last month, in a meeting with the Caucus members that Administration officials had regarded as little more than a courtesy call, many of the legislators were angered by Mr. Payton’s answers to questions about whether the Voting Rights Act permits the creation of such districts. They said his responses were noncommittal. In addition, many lawmakers said they were offended by Mr. Payton’s statement that he had not voted in the last 16 years. Underlying the dispute is the difference in views of of the black Caucus and the leaders of civil rights organizations in Washington. These leaders had strongly promoted Mr. Payton’s candidacy. More : query.nytimes.com |