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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT