Number of female judges in Indiana remains stagnant

May 17, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The good news is Indiana isn’t last when it comes to the number of female judges as compared to the rest of the country. The bad news is we aren’t anywhere near the top of the ranking. The so-so news is that even though we’ve gained three women on the federal bench in the last year, the number of women serving as federal and state judges remains at 20 percent of our total judges. We’ve also dropped three spots in our national ranking to 38 despite the fact our percentage remained the same. That means other states are putting more females on the bench than us.

A report by University of Albany’s Center for Women in Government & Civil Society of the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy finds that nationwide, women make up 23 percent of all federal judgeships and 27 percent of all state-level positions.

On the federal level, we’ve made great strides. We went from under 10 percent of our judges being women to just about 15 percent of our judicial makeup being female. But we are just 42nd in the country for our number of female judges. New Jersey is first, with 44 percent of its federal judiciary comprised of women. At least we aren’t Montana, where they have no women on their federal bench.

But Montana trounced us when it comes to female state judges – they are ranked third, at more than 37 percent female. We’re in the bottom half of the rankings, coming in at 39th with a little over 20 percent female state judges.

We are also one of the only states to not have a sitting female justice.

Despite women making up about half of law school graduates, no state is near achieving equal representation of 50 percent on the federal or state bench.

Do you think that how a judge is selected affects these numbers? Are women more likely to make it to the bench through judicial appointments or elections, or does the process even matter?

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