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. 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