Over the years, the blue-slippolicy has been modified to prevent a single Senator from having such absolute power over the fateof home-state judicial nominees. Out of such considerations grew thecustom of senatorial courtesy. In the case of U.S. district court nominations, (9) once a nomination is referred to the Judiciary Committee, thecounsel for the committee will send a blue slip (so called because of its color) to each Senator of thenominee's home state, regardless of party affiliation. (26) The policy was that if aSenator either returned a negative blue slip or failed to return one at all, the committee would stopall action on a nominee. (38) 
Therefore, under Chairman Thurmond's blue-slip policy, a home-state Senator could stop allcommittee action on a judicial nominee by returning a negative blue slip; however, the committeewould not stop action on a nominee if the home-state Senator failed to return it. (43) Although tradition dictatedthat negative blue slips from both home-state Senators would prevent committee action, ChairmanThurmond decided to move forward. Bush in 1989, Chairman Biden sent a letter to the President stating the committee's blue-slippolicy:
The return of a negative blue slip will be a significantfactor to be weighed by the committee in its evaluation of a judicial nominee, but it will not precludeconsideration of that nominee unless the Administration has not consulted with both home stateSenators prior to submitting the nomination to the Senate. (49) In that letter, he laid out five circumstances that would promptthe Judiciary Committee to delay or hold up a nomination:
(1) failure to give serious consideration to individualsproposed by home state Senators as possible nominees;
(2) failure to identify to home state Senators and theJudiciary Committee an individual the President is considering nominating with enough time toallow the Senator to provide meaningful feedback before any formal clearance (i.e., by the ABA orFBI) on the prospective nominee is initiated;
(3) after having identified the name of an individual thePresident is considering nominating, failure to (a) seek a home state Senator's feedback, includingany objections the Senator may have to the prospective nominee, at least two weeks before anyformal clearances are initiated, and (b) give that feedback seriousconsideration;
(4) failure to notify a home state Senator, and theJudiciary Committee, that formal clearance on a prospective nominee is being initiated despite theSenator's objections; and
(5) failure to notify home state Senators, and theJudiciary Committee, before a nomination is actually made, that the President will nominate anindividual. (68)
(69)

		June 6, 2001, to the End of the 107th Congress

On June 6, 2001, Senator Leahy took over as Judiciary chairman. (81) Thus, the blue-slip policy in the 108th Congress is that only oneof the home-state Senators must return a positive blue slip before the Judiciary Committee will moveforward with a nomination -- provided that the Administration engages in pre-nominationconsultation with both home-state Senators. Circuit or District Court nominee. The following are some of the more important dates of note for blue slips:
1917 -- first appearance of a blue slip
1917 -- first appearance of a negative blue slip
1922 -- time limit placed on the return of blue slips
1956 -- first formal change in blue-slip policy since itscreation
1979 -- second alteration in blue-slip policy
1989 -- first public statement of the blue-slip policy
1998 -- time limit removed on the return of blue slips
2001 -- first time blue slips made public

		When Does a Blue Slip Postpone a Nomination Indefinitely? This report will be updated to reflect policy changes relating to blue slips.
The blue-slip process had its genesis in the Senate tradition of senatorial courtesy. Under thisinformal custom, the Senate would refuse to confirm a nomination unless the nominee had beenapproved by the home-state Senators of the President's party. The Senate Committee on theJudiciary created the blue slip (so called because of its color) out of this practice in the early 1900s. Initially, the blue slip permitted Senators, regardless of party affiliation, to voice their opinion on aPresident's nomination to a district court in their state or to a circuit court judgeship traditionallyappointed from their home state. Over the years, the blue slip has evolved into a tool used bySenators to delay, and often times prevent, the confirmation of nominees they find objectionable. The following six periods highlight the major changes that various chairmen of the JudiciaryCommittee undertook in their blue-slip policy:
From 1917 through 1955: The blue-slip policy allowed home-state Senatorsto state their objections but committee action to move forward on a nomination. If a Senatorobjected to his/her home-state nominee, the committee would report the nominee adversely to theSenate, where the contesting Senator would have the option of stating his/her objections to thenominee before the Senate would vote on confirmation.
From 1956 through 1978: A single home-state Senator could stop allcommittee action on a judicial nominee by either returning a negative blue slip or failing to returna blue slip to the committee.
From 1979 to mid-1989: A home-state Senator's failure to return a blue slipwould not necessarily prevent committee action on a nominee.
From mid-1989 through June 5, 2001: In a public letter (1989) on thecommittee's blue-slip policy, the chairman wrote that one negative blue slip would be "a significantfactor to be weighed" but would "not preclude consideration" of a nominee "unless theAdministration has not consulted with both home state Senators." The committee would take noaction, regardless of presidential consultation, if both home-state Senators returned negative blueslips.
From June 6, 2001, to 2003: The chairman's blue-slip policy allowedmovement on a judicial nominee only if both home-state Senators returned positive blue slips to thecommittee. If one home-state Senator returned a negative blue slip, no further action would be takenon the nominee.
2003: A return of a negative blue slip by one or both home-state Senators doesnot prevent the committee from moving forward with the nomination -- provided that theAdministration has engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-stateSenators.
The blue-slip process has been the subject of growing scholarly and legal debate; a selectedlist of reading material is included at the end of this report.
This report will be updated to reflect future blue-slip policy developments.