Frustrated Latinos Lobby Clinton for a Place on High Court

For almost a decade, White House lawyers under Presidents Bush and Clinton have been quietly searching for a Latino jurist who could be named to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Such a nomination not only would be hailed as a historic first, but it could give a major political boost to the president’s party, because nearly one in nine Americans has a Latino heritage.

But the lengthy, and so far fruitless, search is becoming a source of frustration for many Latinos who say they have heard lots of promises but have not seen much action.

“Quite frankly, I don’t think they have ever been serious about it,” said Antonia Hernandez, executive director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles.

Though advisors to Bush and Clinton mentioned Latino candidates as top contenders for previous appointments, “I don’t believe a Latino has yet been under serious consideration,” she said.

The issue flared anew with rumors that 78-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens planned to retire at the end of the court term. White House judge-pickers scrambled to update their files of potential nominees, including several veteran Latino jurists.

But the rumors were wrong. The still-spry Stevens announced that he would be back in the fall for his 23rd year on the bench.

The latest disappointment for Latino leaders has raised the specter that the Clinton administration will end with no Latino on the court. Neither Stevens nor Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 73, the oldest members of the court, is seen as likely to retire in the next two years.

“We were disappointed the first time, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was chosen,” said Carlos G. Ortiz of the Hispanic National Bar Assn. “We were disillusioned and outraged the second time around,” when Stephen G. Breyer was named to the court in 1994.

“We are extremely confident we will get the nod the next time around,” said Ortiz, a New York corporate lawyer. “It would be unimaginable for us to be bypassed a third time. If he doesn’t get another chance, Clinton’s successor--whether a Republican or Democrat--will seize this opportunity.”

The high-pressure lobbying has been heard within the administration. “They have been persistent, very persistent,” one official said of the Latino community.

The lobbying, however, also has created something of a dilemma for the White House. Although administration officials say they are anxious to promote a Latino jurist, they do not want to commit themselves--or be seen as committed in advance--to choosing from only one list of candidates.

Seeking a Latino jurist for the high court “is a priority for the administration. It would be great if we can find the right person,” said new White House Deputy Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste. But, she added, many factors come into play in picking a new justice. “It is inappropriate to ask the president to commit to a particular constituency. When there is a vacancy, we want to look at all the candidates.”

Until the early 1970s, nominees to the Supreme Court often came from political posts (such as Sen. Hugo Black in 1937 and California Gov. Earl Warren in 1953), or were presidential advisors (such as Byron White, President Kennedy’s deputy attorney general, and Arthur Goldberg, his Labor secretary).

But in recent decades, most high court nominees have been veteran appeals court judges. Both of Clinton’s choices--Justices Ginsburg (from the U.S. court of appeals in Washington) and Breyer (Boston) fit that mold.

If nothing else, a judge’s record of written opinions gives the president and Senate confidence that they know what they are getting.

White House officials say they maintain a list of a dozen or more possible nominees to the Supreme Court. They include, for example, federal appeals court Judge David S. Tatel, 56, a former civil rights attorney who is blind.

When Clinton took office, his advisors set out to create a cadre of experienced Latino jurists on the lower courts. Administration officials say they have made progress but still lack what one called “a true star.”

Nonetheless, several now are seen as potential Supreme Court nominees.

They include U.S. appeals court Judges Fortunado P. Benavides of Austin, Texas; Jose A. Cabranes of New Haven, Conn.; and Carlos F. Lucero of Denver; as well as U.S. District Judges Ruben Castillo of Chicago; Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe, N.M.; Richard Paez of Los Angeles; and Sonia Sotomayor of New York.

Clinton has nominated Paez and Sotomayor to move up to their regional appeals courts.

The Hispanic National Bar Assn. gave the White House its short list of six candidates for the Supreme Court. Besides Benavides and Cabranes, it included New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Joseph F. Baca, former U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chairman Gilbert Casellas, former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso and Los Angeles lawyer Vilma S. Martinez.

Had Stevens retired, Cabranes would have been the favorite to succeed him.

Cabranes, 58, was born in Mayaquez, Puerto Rico. His family moved to the South Bronx in New York City when he was 5. He graduated from Columbia University and Yale Law School, and in 1972 was a founder of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund.

In 1979, he was general counsel of Yale when President Carter nominated him to be a federal district judge. Now a U.S. appeals court judge, Cabranes was considered for the Supreme Court by Bush’s advisors in 1990 and 1991, and again by Clinton’s team in 1993 and 1994.

Despite Cabranes’ credentials, he attracts little enthusiasm among Democrats and liberal activists.

“He’s the candidate the Republicans are pushing,” said Nan Aron, director of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group. “Even among the Hispanic groups, he has his promoters and his detractors.”

C. Boyden Gray, Bush’s White House counsel, said Cabranes was highly regarded in the Republican administration. “If there had been a second term [for Bush], he would have been given very careful consideration for the next vacancy,” Gray said.

A Clinton administration official characterized Cabranes as “pretty conservative,” but added, “With the [Republican-controlled] Senate the way it is, that may work in his favor.”

For their part, Latino leaders say they would enthusiastically unite behind Cabranes if he were nominated.

They cite the example of Ginsburg, who by 1993 had compiled a moderate record on the U.S. court of appeals. Her decisions often had disappointed liberal activists and women’s rights lawyers who once had worked with her at the American Civil Liberties Union. However, when Clinton selected her for the Supreme Court, they put aside their quibbles and strongly endorsed her nomination.

Latino leaders also point to history and say the elevation of a Latino justice would have enormous symbolic importance.

In 1916, Louis D. Brandeis became the first Jewish justice, a landmark breakthrough at the time. In 1967, President Johnson named Thurgood Marshall as the first black justice. And in 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman on the high court when President Reagan appointed her.

“It is time, and really past time, for a Latino on the court,” said Martin R. Castro, a Chicago lawyer who chairs the Hispanic Bar Assn. committee that screened the potential nominees. “It is time we are finally allowed to sit at the table as full partners.”