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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT