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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT