Few women on the bench

February 3, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Women just barely outnumber men in the U.S., and nearly half of law school grads and firm associates are women, yet we still make up less than a third, and sometimes, less than a tenth of the judges in state or federal courts.

The nomination of two female judges to the U.S. District’s Southern District of Indiana is definitely a step in the right direction. It will double the number of women on the federal bench here; however, that sounds more significant than it really is. If confirmed, we’ll have four women on the federal bench, which will mean women make up only 13 percent of that bench. That is an improvement on our current 9.6 percent female makeup.

A report recently released by the Center for Women in Government & Civil Society from the University at Albany, State University of New York, ranked Indiana pretty low when it came to the female composition of our benches. We’re 46th in the country in terms of the percentage of women on our federal bench; we fared a little better in state courts, where we tied for 35th place with 20.7 percent of female judges.

The report attributes this gender gap to not a lack of qualified women but lack of opportunity and access to the bench. Various legal organizations and bar associations have addressed this issue, with the latest happening tonight in Washington, D.C. While the event “How to become a judge” doesn’t specifically say it’s for women, it’s presented in part by the District of Columbia Women’s Bar Association and is comprised of a mostly female panel.

Indiana’s courts are not very diverse, especially when compared to other states. We are one of a handful of states that don’t have a woman on our Supreme Court. What needs to be done to get more qualified women and minorities on the bench?
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT