Report finds more women judges

July 23, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although women make up about half the population of the United States, and there is nearly the same amount of female lawyers and male lawyers in the country, women make up only 27.1 percent of the judges here. But, the good news for those who like diversity on the bench is that number has slightly increased in the last two years.

This is the third year I’ve written about a report from the Center for Women in Government & Civil Society at the University of Albany which shows that while the number is barely inching up, more women are sitting on state and federal benches.

Last year, women made up 26.6 percent of judges in state and federal courts; in 2010, they comprised 26 percent. The percent of women on state benches is higher than in federal court.

“This is both good news and bad news," said Dina Refki, director of CWGCS. "The good news is that there is movement at least at the state level, but the bad news is that the rate of change is so slow and in the case of the federal benches, we are experiencing a set-back. If women are graduating from law schools at the same rate as men and if there is a pool of qualified women who are ready to serve, there is no explanation for the unbalanced representation on the bench."

Indiana’s numbers stayed the same from last year: we have 88 women on the bench – 83 are state judges; 5 serve on the federal bench. Women represent 20 percent of the state’s judges. That puts us in the report’s “Tier 2” where women occupy 20 to 29 percent of seats on federal and state benches.

In fact, the Midwest region’s percentage stayed the same as last year at 24.6 percent. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin constitute the Midwest for this report.

Again, Montana topped the list with 40.3 percent of their judges being women. But they don’t have any women on the federal bench, a distinction they share with Idaho. Idaho also came in last in overall number of women on the bench – only 11.3 percent.

The report comes just as Gov. Mitch Daniels has the ability to add two women to state court (that’s assuming a woman is a finalist for the Indiana justice vacancy. If there isn’t one, then expect a future blog post from me.) The governor has made five appellate appointments, with two being female – Elaine Brown to the Court of Appeals in 2008 and Martha Wentworth to the Tax Court in 2011.

Do you pay much attention to reports like this, touting the deficient number of female representation on the bench? Why are these types of reports important?
 

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
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT