"The National Urban League arrived at this decision after a careful and exhaustive review of John Roberts' available record, with a particular focus on his positions on civil rights, and only after Judge Roberts was given the opportunity to express his views during his Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings.

"The National Urban League had identified key areas of deep concern about Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court and we shared these concerns with each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to the hearing. Most notably, we were troubled by Judge Roberts' previous writings that indicated he was opposed to certain civil rights remedies that are critical to the attainment of full civil rights for African-Americans and other people of color.

"As we requested, Committee members questioned Judge Roberts closely about his views on civil rights, his rationale for his previous positions in opposition to civil rights remedies such as affirmative action, and whether he still holds such views today. We were deeply disappointed that, rather than adequately addressing these concerns, Judge Roberts provided inadequate responses, or, in some instances, skirted these questions altogether.

"For example, in his writings, the nominee staunchly opposed affirmative action, claiming that it is constitutionally impermissible to consider race in hiring and retention matters. He argued that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates" and referred to 'the purported need for race-conscious remedies such as busing and affirmative action.' When asked about this during his testimony, Judge Roberts stated that he has always supported affirmative action but opposes 'quotas.' However, throughout his testimony, Judge Roberts repeatedly mischaracterized valid affirmative action measures as 'quotas,' calling into question his understanding of and support for affirmative action.

"During his government service, the nominee vigorously fought against the use of the 'effects test' to prove discrimination, arguing that Voting Rights Act violations 'should not be made too easy to prove.' The National Urban League believes strongly that the Voting Rights Act is critical to ensure a truly participatory government, and that violations should be treated with the utmost seriousness. Therefore, we were particularly interested to hear whether Judge Roberts continues to hold such unacceptable views. However, in his Senate testimony, Judge Roberts refused to disavow these previous positions or to state his current view of the effects test in voting rights and other civil rights cases. Given the importance of the issue of voting rights and the critical role that Judge Roberts will play in interpreting the Voting Rights Act, his responses in this regard were unacceptable.

"Judge Roberts has failed to allay any of the National Urban League's concerns about his commitment to civil rights. Because of the League's long-standing commitment to civil rights, we are compelled to urge the Senate to reject giving Judge Roberts a lifetime appointment as the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court."