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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT