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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT