There are a lot of qualities the governor should look for in a replacement for Chief Justice Randall Shepard on the Indiana Supreme Court. But The Journal Gazette seems to care only about one of them:
Commission members and the governor all need to realize that diversity on the court is crucial and that Indiana's status as one of just two states with no female justices is an embarrassment, with both practical and symbolic repercussions.
Shepard has served Hoosiers well, but an all-male court is by definition limited in its outlook. Daniels has an opportunity to make the court even better.
Naturally, our page has a different opinion.
Here's our editorial from Friday:
Randall T. Shepard is retiring after 24 years as chief justice, and he will also be the chairman of the commission that will recommend three candidates for his own replacement to Gov. Mitch Daniels. He says both men and women will be considered for the job, but whether the next justice is a woman “depends on who applies for the job,” which is the right way to view the process.
The state's obligation is to, in Shepard's words, “beat the bushes and encourage people of all sorts to make themselves available,” not just for the sake of having a diverse pool but to make sure the best people available are in the talent pool. Then, the three people most suited for the bench should be chosen from that group. Period.
Then, the governor must pick the most qualified of the three. Period.
Not saying gender shouldn't be considered as one factor. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
Institutions generally get what they seek. If their goal is diversity, then other qualifications, they will probably have a diverse staff that might or might not be good. If their goal is competence, then diversity, they will likely have a competent staff that might or might not be diverse. Which kind of staff would you want at, say, your doctor's office?
