ILNews

Editorial: Next choice for Indiana Supreme Court must be a woman

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

“I have no doubt what the future looks like. The only question is, when will that future roll around?”

Well, it’s taken 11 years for that future to roll around.

The above words were spoken by Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard for a news story not long after Justice Robert Rucker was named to the court in 1999. Justice Shepard was expressing his confidence in the fact that the next choice for a justice on the high court here would be a woman.

We mean in no way to disparage the gentlemen who make up our Indiana Supreme Court, but if one looks at the historical makeup of the court strictly from a diversity standpoint, it’s not an attractive picture by the numbers: one woman, two African-Americans, 102 white men.

So if since May 25 you’ve spent more than 30 seconds talking with a woman lawyer who practices in Indiana, you’ve doubtless heard something along these lines: “How can we be one of only two states in the nation without a woman on our Supreme Court?”

That date, of course, is when Justice Ted Boehm announced that he will retire from the court later this year.

We truly hate to see him go, but his departure makes room for some gender diversity on our high court.

It wasn’t always so male.

The only woman and first African-American on the Supreme Court was Myra Selby, who was a justice from 1995 to 1999 before returning to private practice. The vacancy formed when she left was filled with Justice Rucker, who was elevated from the Indiana Court of Appeals.

At that time, women’s groups called for the expansion of the court to allow for more diversity, but to no avail. Indiana’s constitution allows for up to eight justices, but an expansion is an expensive proposition in any economic climate, and our state was in much better financial shape in 1999 than it is now.

Still, we take heart in what Chief Justice Shepard said 11 years ago on the subject of a woman becoming a member of the court: “It does matter that you have people from different walks of life, and both men and women. You get a healthy mix of experiences and ideas when the group isn’t all cut out of the same cloth.”

Amen to that.

In the same aforementioned news story, Indianapolis lawyer and Julian Center Executive Director Ann DeLaney was among those calling for an expansion of the court. She pointed out then that it could be years before any of the justices decided to retire.

She ended up being right, of course, but we also would remind readers of what she said on the subject then:

“Having an all-male court sends the wrong message.”

Amen to that, too.

Our research on the subject led us to story from a couple of years ago when some of our justices were facing a retention vote. Former justice Selby told us then: “… I’m a firm believer that our court is one of the most important aspects of our society, and it ought to reflect that society in order to remain vibrant and be a part of that fabric of what we’re all about. Having broken the barrier (of having a woman on the court) doesn’t mean we should rest. It’s still something that deserves our attention and focus.”

It is our sincere hope that the future Chief Justice Shepard looked to 11 years ago will soon be decidedly more female.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT