Myths And Facts About Labor Nominee Tom Perez

President Obama has nominated Thomas E. Perez as Secretary of Labor. Right-wing media used this announcement to push false attacks about Perez based on his service in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and other civil rights work and advocacy.

President Chooses DoJ's Thomas Perez As Labor Secretary Nominee

Huffington Post: Perez Picked As Obama's Labor Secretary Nominee. The Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly reported:

Tom Perez is President Obama's next nominee to head the Labor Department, the White House said Sunday night. Obama will announce the nomination on Monday.

Perez is currently an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, where he has headed the Civil Rights Division since 2009. He previously served as secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR). [Huffington Post, 3/17/13]

MYTH: Perez Is Pushing A Damaging Clinton-Era Policy For Translators In Health Care

National Review Online: Perez Defended “Discouraging” Requirement For Some Doctors To Provide Translators To Patients With Limited English Proficiency. NRO reporter Katrina Trinko claimed that Perez “railed” against an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to repeal President Clinton's language access order, Executive Order 13166, which demonstrates that Perez “fails to understand” how the amendment undermines patient care. From the National Review Online:

[A] Senate Republican insider says Perez's push for federally mandated translators is “very likely” to be an issue at his upcoming confirmation hearings.

At stake was whether the federal government should continue to require that doctors in some practices provide translators for patients who speak little to no English.


In 2009, Coburn worried that “Perez fails to understand how the executive order undermines patient care, and I fear this lack of understanding will affect similar policies he will implement if he is confirmed to head the Civil Rights Division.” Substitute “Labor Department” for “Civil Rights Division” and Coburn's concern still applies today. [National Review Online, 3/27/13]

FACT: Perez Opposed Repeal Of The Requirement Because EO 13166 Is Based On The Constitutional Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination

National Health Law Program: Language Access For Persons Of Limited English Proficiency Is Required Under Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 And Supreme Court Precedent. Executive Order 13166, reissued by President George W. Bush, is one of many examples of federal guidance that regulates language access in federally-funded health care, pursuant to Title VI's prohibition on national origin discrimination, which the Supreme Court ruled encompasses language discrimination in 1974. As explained by NHeLP:

Is there a federal requirement that health care providers offer interpreters to individuals who do not speak English well?

Yes. In 1964, Congress passed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination. Its purpose is to ensure that federal money is not used to support health care providers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Title VI says:

No person in the United States shall, on ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the courts have applied this statute to protect national origin minorities who do not speak English well. Thus, recipients of federal funding must take reasonable steps to ensure that people with limited English proficiency (LEP) have meaningful access to their programs and services. [“Federal Laws And Policies To Ensure Access To Health Care Services For People With Limited English Proficiency,” National Health Law Program, Updated 2009]

Perez: Executive Order “Is Consistent With Title VI Of The Civil Rights Act.” In a 2006 article created by the Center for American Progress and published in Mother Jones, Perez explained his opposition to the amendment:

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has proposed an amendment to immigration reform legislation that would repeal Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), a provision that has helped to eliminate language barriers to attaining quality health care services. The Senate should reject this amendment.

The executive order requires federal agencies to ensure that people with limited English skills can access their services and programs, and also requires federal agencies to develop language access guidelines for other federally funded programs that are not directly managed by the federal government. This order is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which protects individuals against discrimination based on national origin. [Mother Jones, 5/25/06]

MYTH: Sen. Vitter Objected To Perez's Enforcement Of The NVRA In 2011 Perez Didn't Respond To Letter Sent By Vitter Questioning The Enforcement Of The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). writer Matthew Boyle recycled the objections of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to the nomination of Perez, specifically the accusations that Perez was “complicit in the coverup” of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case and Vitter's unanswered questions about the “partisan” enforcement of the NVRA were the reasons for his opposition. From

Perez, currently the Assistant Attorney General atop the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, was complicit in the coverup after the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal at the beginning of the Obama administration. Vitter sent the DOJ a letter in 2011 - two years ago - asking questions about Perez's involvement in that affair, but has not received any response. He said he will block Perez's nomination until he receives a response.

“Thomas Perez's record should be met with great suspicion by my colleagues for his spotty work related to the New Black Panther case, but Louisianians most certainly should have cause for concern about this nomination,” Vitter said in a Monday statement. “Perez was greatly involved in the DOJ's partisan full court press to pressure Louisiana's Secretary of State to only enforce one side of the law - the side that specifically benefits the politics of the president and his administration at the expense of identity security of each and every Louisianian on the voter rolls.” [, 3/18/13]

FACT: An Investigation Confirmed NVRA Politicization Did Not Occur And Vitter's Office Cannot Confirm The 2011 Letter Exists

Roll Call: DoJ Notes The Inspector General Debunked Vitter's Allegations And Vitter First Raised These Concerns “In The Hours After Perez's Nomination.” The Department of Justice (DoJ) responded to Vitter's accusations by noting that a recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation confirmed there was no politicized enforcement of the NVRA, multiple lawsuits allege Louisiana violated the law by not properly registering its citizens, and Vitter's own office has no record they raised their concerns prior to Perez's nomination. As reported by John Gramlich:

[Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Judith C.] Appelbaum referred Vitter to a March 12 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, that she said refutes those allegations.


Appelbaum declined to respond to Vitter's specific comments about Louisiana, noting that the state's enforcement of the law is the subject of ongoing litigation with the Justice Department. But she said a federal court recently found Louisiana in violation of Section 7 of the law in a separate, private lawsuit against the state.


Appelbaum said Friday that the department never received the original letter [that Vitter said he sent in 2011] and only learned of Vitter's concerns in the hours after Perez's nomination.

“The department did not receive your letter until this week, and thus we were unable to reply until now,” she wrote. “When we saw the press release your office issued on March 18, 2013, stating that the department had not responded to your letter, we contacted your office to notify your staff that we had no record of receiving the letter. We understand that your office has been unable to confirm the transmittal of this letter to the department before your staff forwarded a copy of the letter to the department via e-mail on March 19, 2013.” [Roll Call, 3/22/13]

MYTH: Perez's Civil Rights Division Impermissibly Discriminates Against Whites

Fox News' Megyn Kelly And Sekulow: Under Perez, The Civil Rights Division (CRT) Has Enforced The Voting Rights Act (VRA) In A Manner That Is “Not Consistent With The Legislation Or The Legislative History.”  Fox News host Megyn Kelly and frequent guest Jay Sekulow used a recent Inspector General report to accuse Perez of leading a CRT that does not protect white voters under the VRA, because of “racial hostility.” From Fox's America Live:

SEKULOW: [The Office of the Inspector General is] concerned about the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that's not consistent with the legislation or the legislative history. That there's been systemic problems within the department. When you look at the New Black Panther Party case, the idea that you didn't enforce a violation for voter intimidation and voter harassment because the people that were harassed were white is ridiculous, but that's the position that [Perez] has taken.


KELLY: [I]n recent years, a debate has arisen about whether voting rights laws that were enacted in response to discrimination against blacks and other minorities also should be used to challenge allegedly improper voting practices that harm white voters. Disputes were ignited when leadership decided to pursue particular cases on behalf of white victims and more recently when division leadership stated that it would focus on “traditional” civil rights cases on behalf of racial or ethnic minorities. What do you take from that?


SEKULOW: Here is the problem and this is a significant problem, the law is not being applied in a colorblind manner, which is what it's supposed to be. So you've got this institutional incompatibility as if the institution is incapable of doing this alone or applying this law in a neutral manner and it really goes beyond Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal. The law is the law and it needs to be applied as such and that's really the problem and I think that's what the Inspector General concludes. [Fox News, America Live3/15/13, via Media Matters]

FACT: The CRT Under Perez Has Followed Congressional Intent And Text Of Voting Rights Act

Office Of The Inspector General (OIG): Perez Was Referencing Long-Time Precedent When He Noted Certain Parts Of The VRA Are Specifically Designed To Protect Communities Of Color. The Department of Justice (DoJ) has enforced the VRA against defendants of color (including in the New Black Panther Party case), but the Supreme Court in Beer v. United States has confirmed that Section 5 of the VRA protects demographics who have historically been the victims of voter suppression. From the DoJ OIG report:

In both public filings and statements to the OIG, the Division has stated that it interprets the non-retrogression principle of Section 5 to be “race-conscious,” in that it does not cover White citizens when they are in the numerical minority in a covered jurisdiction. See e.g.,LaRoque v. Holder, Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (stating: “the non-retrogression principle of Section 5 has always been race-conscious in that it denies preclearance only to voting changes that 'would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise,'” quoting Beer).


Perez stated that interpreting Section 5's retrogressive-effect standard to not cover White citizens was consistent with the Division's longstanding practice, as well as case law interpreting the provision and the intent behind its enactment. Perez also told the OIG that he believed interpreting the retrogressive-effect prong of the analysis to cover White citizens would be inconsistent with the history of and intent behind Section 5, which he stated was enacted to remedy the specific problem of discrimination against racial minorities. Perez's letter stated that the precise question of whether the retrogressive-effect prong of Section 5 protects White citizens has arisen “exceedingly rarely,” but asserted that a series of Supreme Court opinions “has consistently recognized that Section 5 was enacted to deal with a particular historical problem of racial discrimination against minorities.” [Department of Justice Office Of the Inspector General, March 2013, citations omitted]

To learn more about the “racial hostility” myth manufactured by right-wing media, click here and here

MYTH: Perez Colluded With The City Of St. Paul To Improperly Withdraw A Supreme Court Case

Wall Street Journal: A “Quid Pro Quota” At The Civil Rights Division (CRT) “Shows How Ideology Trumped The Rule Of Law.” The WSJ has pushed the unsubstantiated accusation that Perez acted improperly by joining other civil rights experts and former Vice President Walter Mondale in advising the City of St. Paul that its Supreme Court case risked giving conservative justices an opening to striking down “disparate impact” litigation. From the WSJ:

We reported earlier this year that Justice Department civil rights chief Thomas Perez had pressured the city of St. Paul, Minnesota to withdraw a lending discrimination case from the Supreme Court so he could use a dubious legal theory to browbeat banks into settlements. Now a House investigation has revealed more details about his intervention, which shows how ideology trumped the rule of law.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Monday, three House committee Chairmen and Iowa Senator Charles Grassley reveal that Mr. Perez struck a quid pro quo with St. Paul to withdraw its lending discrimination case, Magner v. Gallagher, from the Supreme Court in exchange for the feds abandoning a separate False Claims Act lawsuit against the city.


Mr. Perez isn't talking, but a Justice spokesman said the “resolution reached in these cases was in the best interests of the United States and consistent with the Department's practice in reaching global settlements.”

We sure hope that latter point isn't true. The House evidence suggests the deal was a corrupt political bargain in which Mr. Newell's legal interests were undermined to serve Mr. Perez's political agenda. [The Wall Street Journal, 9/25/12]

FACT: There Is No Evidence That Perez Was Involved In A “Corrupt” Conspiracy

St. Paul Pioneer Press: Legal Expert Says There Was Nothing “Improper With The City Discussing The Case With HUD Or The Justice Department.” Although Congressional Republican staffers are leaking they have undisclosed evidence that “certain federal officials and other individuals improperly influenced” the City of St. Paul, Myron Orfield, executive director of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota Law, said there was nothing scandalous in Perez's confirmed intervention. From the Pioneer Press:

Leading members of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are pressuring St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman to say whether the Obama administration had a role in the city's decision to withdraw a housing case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 29.


Myron Orfield, executive director of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota Law School, said he wasn't familiar with the committee's letters, but he saw nothing improper with the city discussing the case with HUD or the Justice Department.

“It feels like St. Paul can decide whether it wants to bring an appeal. I'm not aware of anything that would be wrong about that,” Orfield said.


Some suspect that an additional goal of the House committee is to throw a negative light on the Obama administration. Coleman, second vice president of the National League of Cities, has been a frequent visitor to the White House in recent months.

A spokesman for the mayor's office declined to explore the possibility of partisan maneuvering.

“I think you'd have to direct that question to the committee,” said Coleman spokesman Joe Campbell. “I can't speculate as to what their intentions are.”

[Neither of the leading Congressional members] could be reached for comment.

Campbell elaborated in an email: “While the city has no desire to be at odds with any congressional committee, we are concerned that the committee inquiry calls for the disclosure of privileged deliberations, just as the city is preparing for trial in the U.S. District Court. We have given them all non-privileged documents pertaining to their inquiry.”

St. Paul City Council President Kathy Lantry said withdrawing the appeal “was a decision that all of us made with our eyes wide open. Winning - if it doesn't achieve the goals that we're supportive of - then it really isn't winning.” [Pioneer Press, 4/16/12]

To learn more about the “shady quid pro quo” myth manufactured by right-wing media, click here

MYTH: Perez Lied To The U.S. Commission On Civil Rights in 2010

The American Spectator: “Loathsome” Perez May Have “Committed Perjury.” Quin Hillyer pushed the false allegation that Perez perjured himself to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights when he testified about whether political appointees improperly truncated the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) investigation, a case that was concluded before Perez rejoined the Department of Justice (DoJ). From the Spectator:

As I described in detail last August, Perez is one of the most loathsome figures in the thoroughly loathsome political ranks of Obama's Justice Department.


Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the little matter of a federal judge hinting broadly that Perez may have committed perjury when testifying that there had been no interference by political appointees in the course of the Obama DoJ's decision to drop already-won voter-intimidation cases against New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. [The American Spectator, 3/12/13]

FACT: Two Internal Investigations And A Federal Judge Confirmed That Perez Did Not Perjure Himself

Mother Jones: Recent Office Of The Inspector General (OIG) Report “Eviscerates The Republican Charge.” Citing a federal judge, the OIG re-confirmed the conclusions of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that the NBPP case was not improperly closed by political appointees and Perez did not intentionally mislead the Commission when he testified to this fact. As reported by Adam Serwer:

[T]he Inspector General's report, like a previous OPR report, found that the decision to narrow the New Black Panther case was “based on a good faith assessment of the law and facts of the case,” not on anti-white racism or corruption. The report also concludes that the political leadership at Justice did influence the handling of the New Black Panther case--but not improperly--by insisting that that the case could not be dismissed outright. This turns the GOP attack on its head, for Republican critics have accused the Obama administration of trying to bury the case to protect a black separatist group. The IG notes no such thing was done.


The report dings Perez, who was not yet running the division when the New Black Panther case was narrowed, for not providing accurate testimony about that case to the US Civil Rights Commission. But the IG notes that Perez did not intentionally mislead the commission. The report states that Perez errantly said that senior officials in the Department of Justice had no involvement in the New Black Panther case. Perez says he was only referring to the accusation that higher-ups had tried to smother the case. [Mother Jones, 3/13/13]

To learn more about the “perjury” myth manufactured by right-wing media, click here

To learn more about the phony New Black Panther Party scandal manufactured by right-wing media, click here and here

MYTH: Perez Was Incompetent In His Enforcement Of The Voting Rights Act

National Review Online: There Are “Important Questions About Just How Competently” Perez Managed Voting Rights Act Cases As Head Of The Civil Rights Division (CRT). John Fund has questioned Perez's competency by repeatedly referring to the Voting Section's challenge to South Carolina's voter ID law as an example of how Perez has been “smacked down by courts all over the country.” From National Review Online:

There are, further, important questions about just how competent Perez has been in running the Civil Rights Division, though that's beyond the scope of the IG's report. As Quin Hillyer has documented in The American Spectator, Holder's office has been repeatedly smacked down by courts all over the country. Last year, a three-judge federal panel in Washington, D.C., ruled against Perez's challenge to South Carolina's voter-ID law.


[Perez's] abysmal record of legal performance at Justice marks him as someone who is a radical ideologue first and a careful lawyer second. [National Review Online, 3/13/13]

FACT: Under Perez's Watch, The CRT Was Very Successful In Curbing The Many Attempts At Voter Suppression In The Last Election Cycle

The Atlantic: The Voting Section Challenge To South Carolina's Voter ID Law Resulted In Its Overhaul And Partial Approval On The Condition That It Not Discriminate Against Voters Of Color. Perez supervised the successful prevention of multiple state legislative attempts at suppressing the votes of communities of color in the 2012 elections, including in South Carolina. As reported by Andrew Cohen:

Perez and his colleagues in the Voting Rights Section achieved consistent success last year invoking federal law to block discriminatory voting practices.

I guess it all depends on your definition of “a cruddy lawyer,” but the truth is that Perez and company prevailed in Texas, and in Florida, and, yes, even to a significant degree in South Carolina, where the Justice Department forced state officials to delay implementation of their voter identification law until after the November general election.

As I wrote last October, the South Carolina ruling was no rout for the feds. But it is silly to contend that the Justice Department got “smacked down hard” in the case. In addition to preventing state officials from enforcing the law last fall, the judges gave South Carolina clear instructions about how it must implement the measure to avoid future constitutional trouble.


Every lawyer dreams of being “smacked down” like that by his trial judge. [The Atlantic, 3/14/13]

To learn more about the “South Carolina smackdown” myth manufactured by right-wing media, click here

MYTH: Perez Served With “Notorious Illegal-Alien Advocacy Group”

Fox's Michelle Malkin: Perez Volunteered For CASA De Maryland, A “Notorious Illegal-Alien Advocacy Group.” In a post to her syndicated column, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin attacked Perez for volunteering with -- and later serving as board president of CASA de Maryland:

During the Clinton years, Perez worked at the Justice Department to establish a “Worker Exploitation Task Force” to enhance working conditions for ... illegal-alien workers. While holding down his government position, Perez volunteered for Casa de Maryland. This notorious illegal-alien advocacy group is funded through a combination of taxpayer-subsidized grants (totaling $5 million in 2010 alone from Maryland and local governments) and radical-liberal philanthropy, including billionaire George Soros's Open Society Institute.

That's in addition to more than $1 million showered on the group by freshly departed Venezuelan thug Hugo Chávez's regime-owned oil company, Citgo. [National Review Online, 3/13/13]

Washington Times Criticized Perez For Working With Organization “Funded by George Soros.” A Washington Times article cited right-wing author Matt Vadum to criticize Perez's position with the organization: He was a board member of Casa de Maryland, an advocacy group for illegal aliens funded by George Soros and the recently deceased Hugo Chavez." [The Washington Times, 3/13/13]

FACT: CASA De Maryland Is A Mainstream Organization That Provides Legal And Social Services To Immigrants

CASA De Maryland Evolved From A Refugee Assistance Organization To Provide Services For Immigrant Community As A Whole. From CASA de Maryland's description of its history:

CASA of Maryland was founded in 1985 by representatives of various congregations, both Central Americans and native-born U.S. citizens. CASA was created in response to the human needs of the thousands of Central Americans arriving to the D.C. area after fleeing wars and civil strife in their countries of origin.


As the community grew in numbers and its needs grew in complexity, CASA so expanded its programs. In 1991, in response to growing numbers of day laborers congregating on street corners looking for work in the Long Branch neighborhood of Silver Spring, with the support of Montgomery College and private foundations, CASA set up a temporary trailer to provide legal and employment assistance to the workers. In 1993, Montgomery County granted CASA space and funding to operate a formal Center for Employment and Training at 734 University Blvd. East, in Silver Spring. This was CASA's first welcome center, which has served as a model for the creation of numerous other centers in Maryland and across the country.

Today, CASA organizes and advocates with its thousands of individual members and provides direct services in the areas of employment placement, workforce development and training, financial literacy, adult ESOL and Spanish literacy instruction, citizenship and legal services, health education, and human services navigation. [CASA de Maryland, accessed 3/18/13]

CASA De Maryland Receives Funding From Mainstream Foundations And Bipartisan Governments. CASA de Maryland's 2012 annual report shows it received funding from mainstream foundations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and others, and has received funding from the government under both Democratic and Republican leadership. [Media Matters, 3/13/13]

MYTH: Perez “Worked With Hardcore Islamist Groups” to Weaken Airport Security

Daily Caller: Perez Met With “Hardcore Islamists” And Complimented Them “For Lobbying Against Airline Security Measures.” The Daily Caller described an October 19, 2011 “meeting between Perez and hardcore Islamists” in which Perez “complimented the Islamists for lobbying against airline security measures.” [Daily Caller, 7/27/12]

Fox News' Patti Ann Browne: Perez Said To Have Worked With “Hardcore Islamist Groups” That “Lobbied Against Airline Security Measures.” On Fox & Friends First, co-host Patti Ann Browne claimed Perez had a “controversial past” and was “said to have worked with hardcore Islamist groups and applauded those who lobbied against airline security measures.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 3/13/13, via Media Matters]

FACT: Perez Attended Interfaith Conference And Supported Non-Discrimination In Airport Security

Perez Attended Interfaith Civil Rights Summit And Emphasized Need To Protect Civil Rights In Airport Security. In October 2011, Perez attended a civil rights summit hosted by George Washington University Law School on Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian Americans experiencing discrimination and hate crimes following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The event was attended by faith leaders and advocates from many religions, including an imam and a rabbi. In his remarks, Perez thanked the audience for giving the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security feedback on airport safety protocols, producing more effective measures that used “a scalpel, not a meat ax” to identify threats and emphasizing the need to protect civil rights:

I talked about reflection and recalibration and let me give you two examples of the need for continuing reflection and recalibration. You may recall the Christmas Day attempted bombing on the airplane. And you will recall the aftermath of that bombing in which certain protocols were put in place that made categorical targeting, that is to say, individuals from certain countries, were categorically being asked a series of additional questions. What did we hear in the aftermath of that? We heard a lot of feedback from people in this room and leaders across the country that we could do a better job. That we should be using a scalpel, not a meat ax. And that we should reconsider what's happening.

And a few months later, as you know, and thanks to you, we did just that. And the Department of Homeland Security recalibrated what it was doing, and I think as a result, it was a more effective mechanism. Because once again, we must always remember, as Jim Cole told us this morning: Don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's either safe streets, secure borders, and secure communities or protection of civil rights and civil liberties. It will always be both. [Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 10/19/11, via Media Matters]