ILNews

Editor's Perspective: Another crack in the glass ceiling

Kelly Lucas
August 27, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigI’d like to make a suggestion to Indiana lawmakers when they return for the 2015 legislative session. I am not telling you how to do your jobs, but this suggestion falls under the guise of editing, so I feel I’m within my bounds.

If those who write the laws feel an itch again this year to propose amendments to the Indiana Constitution, you may want to take a look at Article 7. In it, the chief justice of the state of Indiana is repeatedly referred to as “he.” On Aug. 18 at 1:20 p.m., that became inaccurate. As we all know, “he” is now a “she.”

As long as you’re at it, and in the spirit of being thorough, a more extensive review may be in order. It appears that most state office holders are referenced as male throughout the document. The lieutenant governor, for example, is also referenced as “he” in the Indiana Constitution. That one has been erroneous for a while.

I am not faulting the framers of the constitution for their pronoun selection. When Indiana’s second constitution was written in 1851, women in this country were still decades away from having the right to vote. When Article 7 was last amended in 1970, there had not yet been a woman on the Indiana Supreme Court, so the chances were slim that a female chief justice was in the offing.

But things are different today.

Not only does the chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court happen to be female, but so is the chief judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Judge Nancy Vaidik. Our state’s tax court is presided over by Judge Martha Wentworth. At the federal level, Judge Robyn Moberly was appointed in July as chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Now, to those of you preparing to fire off a firmly worded email suggesting that I am “failing to see the forest for the trees,” please know that I realize the appointment of these very qualified women to top leadership positions does not mean that gender diversity in the legal profession or, specifically, the judiciary has been achieved. Clearly, work remains.

But the Indiana Lawyer devotes time and ink to reporting on shortcomings that exist concerning diversity and other areas of law, and I am a firm believer that we must report both sides of a story. We will shine a light on problems we see, but we will also blow the trumpet to celebrate success.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush remarked shortly after her selection that she “looks forward to the day when it is unremarkable” that a woman would be selected to lead the court. Throughout this process, she has made it clear that her motivation is to help keep the judiciary reflective of the diverse citizenry it serves. “The strength of our Supreme Court is based on the collective strength and wisdom of our five justices,” Rush said during her swearing-in ceremony, “and I am still just one vote.”

Gov. Mike Pence said that Rush was unanimously selected for this role because she was the best choice to lead the Supreme Court. The Judicial Nominating Commission had other very qualified candidates in Justices Steven David, Mark Massa and Robert Rucker, but they chose Rush because they agreed that she was the best person for the job today.

Most “firsts” seem remarkable – they require quashing stereotypes and clearing hurdles – and this one certainly earned a spot in the history books. With the selection of Loretta Rush as chief justice, another glass ceiling has been broken in Indiana. Now, as she said at the conclusion of her swearing-in ceremony, it is time to “get back to work.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT