ILNews

Indiana justice gender issue resurfaces

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seventy-two percent of applicants for the current vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court were women. After a first round of interviews, 60 percent of semifinalists were women. The number fell to 33 percent – just one woman – by the time Gov. Mitch Daniels got the final three names.

Nation Nation

The numbers are disappointing to court watchers who thought odds were stronger this time around that two or potentially three women might be among the finalists from whom Daniels will appoint the next justice.

Indiana is one of just three states, including Idaho and Iowa, that have no women on their supreme courts. Only one woman, Myra Selby, has ever served on Indiana’s Supreme Court. She left the bench in 1999 after four years.

Charles Geyh, a professor and judicial appointment expert at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the issue represents at the very least a perception problem for the judiciary and the selection process, though he said the finalists selected each were imminently qualified. He said gender “absolutely” should be a consideration for the high court vacancy.

loretta rush Rush

“This isn’t about affirmative action, and I recognize the Supreme Court of Indiana is not like a legislature. Nonetheless, it does serve the people of Indiana, and by the way, half of them are women,” Geyh said.

“It’s hard to defend unless you can look at the Indiana bar and say women are so deficient that they don’t deserve a spot on the Supreme Court, and I don’t think anyone is that out of their mind,” he said. “To me, when you’re talking about a Supreme Court that’s serving the entirety of the state, you ought to be mindful, I think, of the perceptions you create.”

Diversity was a topic most semifinalists before the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission were asked to discuss during their interviews on Aug. 8. Many of them said gender and racial diversity were important, but they said diversity of background, professional and life experience also were important.

geoff slaughter Slaughter

If Daniels does select a woman this time, it will be Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush. Other finalists the commission selected are Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation and Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP partner Geoffrey Slaughter.

“I think each one of them is well qualified and brings different strengths to the table,” said Joel Schumm, professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law who watched and commented on the commission’s interviews.

Schumm said Rush’s semifinalist interview with the commission stood out to him as the day’s best.

“She was confident but not arrogant,” he said. But Schumm said Slaughter is among the best appellate attorneys in the state, and Nation probably has the broadest base of experience of the finalists.

Schumm said he heard from a number of women who were upset that only one woman had advanced for the governor’s consideration. Schumm said he understood the sentiment, but he also understood the commission’s choices.

“It was an open and fair process, and what I hope doesn’t happen is fewer people or fewer women in general apply in the future,” he said. “That said, each one of the three finalists is well qualified and it’s hard to say how the governor makes a decision of who’s best qualified. … There’s not a consistent yardstick for that.”

finalistsThe commission’s decision was marked by a rare departure from its customary unanimous public votes in favor of a slate of three finalists. Commission member Jim McDonald, a Terre Haute private practice attorney, voted against the three finalists but declined to explain what prompted him to do so.

McDonald acknowledged the unusual circumstance, saying only, “I felt strongly enough then that I was going to vote my conscience.”

Daniels will have 60 days from the official receipt of a letter notifying him of the commission’s decision to appoint a justice to replace Frank Sullivan Jr., who retired from the court to join the faculty at I.U. McKinney School of Law. It’s unclear what role gender may play in Daniels’ decision, or whether he may move faster since Sullivan has departed.

“The governor will approach this vacancy the way he has the others,” Daniels’ deputy press secretary Jake Oakman said in a statement. “He will select the best qualified person and make the selection when he’s ready.”

Geyh said the fact that just one woman was among the finalists “kind of forces the governor’s hand a little bit. If he was going to choose a woman, he has only one choice.”

Melissa Cohen of Cohen & Sawochka P.C. in Merrillville is president of the Indiana Women Lawyers Association, a nonpartisan organization that represents about 100 attorneys, mostly in northwest Indiana. She said it’s a concern to the group that Indiana is just one of three states without female representation on the state’s court of last resort.

Cohen said all the finalists are qualified candidates, but “we thought there were enough qualified women candidates that more than one could be considered for the final three.”

“The Women Lawyers Association thinks that there are many qualified women in the state of Indiana who would be excellent Supreme Court justices,” Cohen said. “There were more women applicants than men. We’re grateful that there is at least one woman in the final three.”

Cohen said the IWLA’s mission is to support the advancement of women lawyers and judges. The group also conducts legal seminars and mentors women lawyers and law students.

“We do think that a woman Supreme Court justice will favorably change the dynamics of the Supreme Court and enrich the measure of justice,” she said.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • pfft
    I have no problem with a woman judge at any level of the court system. nevertheless the sex-parity conversations smack of affirmative action and are totally inappropriate and undignified for the judiciary. I don't care that all the wonks and talking heads love to make these head-counting ethnic and "gender" analyses, they are all inappropriate for the small number of slots out there in the judiciary. When you categorize human types you can fashion as many categories as imaginable. So does every imaginable category need a represenatative on the bench? That whole conversation is ridiculous and the higher you go the more ridiculous it gets and the US Supreme Court discussions along these lines are the absolutely most offensive. Also I'm a white male, and yes these category style promotions are always at the expense of white males. Do I need to be happy that my category always gets the disadvantage? I'm not even if we are socalled "overrepresented."
  • New Justice needs to be Objective and Independent
    I too was disappointed to see only one female selected in the final three. There were many other candidates who weren’t former partners with the new Chief Justice and just as qualified. Although she is likely a qualified candidate shouldn’t the 2nd Indiana Supreme Court Justice give the appearance to be fair and impartial? After all isn’t that what justice are supposed to be? Didn't the legislature pass a bill last legislative session prohibiting cronyism and nepotism?

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT