ILNews

Lucas: Is diversity within the judiciary important?

Kelly Lucas
February 15, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigChange is coming.

Many were surprised when Chief Justice Randall Shepard announced his impending retirement last year. Indiana’s mandatory retirement age for judges is going to force turnover on the Court of Appeals this year as well. Word on the street is other vacancies on the appellate bench may occur. Attorneys interested in vying for Court of Appeals and Supreme Court openings are keenly aware of the opportunities on the horizon.

On page 3, you will read about the process currently underway to select the newest Supreme Court justice. The pool began with 15 interested applicants, and it has now been narrowed to seven. A group that began with seven women and eight men is now three women and four men. The original group included two African-American women, and one of these women remains in contention for the judicial opening. It might be coincidence, but I surmise that the Judicial Nominating Commission is keeping diversity in mind when going about the difficult task of selecting semi-finalists and, eventually, finalists.

In her story, Jennifer Nelson looks at how the gender and racial makeup of the judicial candidate pool stacks up against Indiana’s general population and that of the state’s legal community. Will Indiana, one of the few states in the country that does not have a female presence on the high court, create gender diversity with this selection? Is that important?

Myra Selby, a former Indiana Supreme Court justice and the only woman to have served on Indiana’s Supreme Court, says a goal should be to have the court reflect the state it serves. She reiterates the point many echo that there are many important qualities and qualifications that go into being an appellate court judge, but Selby, who serves as chair of the Supreme Court’s Commission on Race and Gender Fairness, adds that the court is enhanced by having different “voices” contributing to the whole.

As the JNC continues its task of selecting finalists for the Supreme Court, the Indiana Lawyer would like to know what our readers think. Is increasing racial diversity or creating gender diversity within the court a consideration when evaluating candidates? Should an applicant’s race or gender factor into the decision-making process? Is the work of the court impacted by its makeup?

Email your thoughts to klucas@ibj.com.•

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

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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT