Staircase of law books leading to a courthouse.

Shattering the Glass Gavel: Why Gender Diversity in Kansas Courts Matters More Than Ever

Samir D’Costa in Law & Justice August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Exploring the Numbers, Obstacles, and Solutions for Achieving Equal Representation in the Kansas Judicial System"

The principle of "representativeness" dictates that courts should mirror the communities they serve, reflecting diversity in race, gender, religion, and life experiences. This is not mere symbolism; diverse perspectives enhance justice. A representative judiciary promotes public confidence, and judges from varied backgrounds bring fresh insights to the application and evolution of the law.

While racial and ethnic diversity in the courts have received considerable attention, gender diversity, particularly at the state level, often remains overlooked. This article sheds light on the gender makeup of attorneys and judges in Kansas, seeking to quantify existing disparities, identify obstacles hindering gender diversity, and propose concrete ways to build a more balanced judicial system.

This study addresses three fundamental questions: 1) What is the extent of the disparity in judicial gender diversity in Kansas? 2) What obstacles impede the attainment of judicial diversity in Kansas? 3) What are some potential pathways to make the judicial system more gender-inclusive?

Unveiling the Numbers: A Snapshot of Gender Diversity in Kansas Courts

Staircase of law books leading to a courthouse.

To accurately assess gender diversity, it's crucial to define the appropriate benchmark. Comparing the gender ratio of judges to the overall population can be misleading. In Kansas, only attorneys are eligible for judgeships; therefore, the applicant pool's composition is the relevant yardstick.

As of the study's data collection, Kansas had 9,199 lawyers, with 2,733 (30%) being women. While this indicates progress, the actual representation of women on the bench remains lower. Furthermore, Kansas's 31 judicial districts introduce another layer of complexity, as district court judge positions are typically filled by residents of that specific district.

Supreme Court and Court of Appeals: Both the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Court of Appeals exhibit a reasonable degree of gender diversity.
Reasonably Diverse Districts: Several judicial districts (3rd, 6th, 8th, 20th, 27th, and 28th) demonstrate reasonable gender diversity compared to their attorney populations.
Districts Below Target: The majority of remaining judicial districts fall more than 10% below the diversity target when comparing women judges to women attorneys in the district.
Significantly Below Target: One judicial district is significantly below the target for gender diversity.
Commission-Based Systems: Districts with commission-based systems generally provide a better opportunity for women judges to be selected.

A crucial factor is the requirement that district court judges have at least five years of legal practice. The historical underrepresentation of women in law school means this requirement might inadvertently contribute to the disparity. Incumbent judges also possess an advantage in retention and partisan elections, which can further skew the statistics. In Kansas, judicial selection follows two distinct paths: a commission system in 17 counties and partisan elections in 14. Conventional wisdom suggests the commission system is more effective at promoting judicial diversity.

Taking Action: Paving the Way for a More Equitable Future

Judicial diversity is not merely a matter of fairness; it enhances public confidence and broadens the scope of experiences on the bench. While Kansas has made strides in gender diversity, there's still work to be done. To achieve lasting progress, we must acknowledge the obstacles, implement data-driven strategies, and actively promote the participation of women in all facets of the judicial system. This requires a multifaceted approach:

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What does the study reveal about the current state of gender diversity in Kansas courts?

The study reveals that while women constitute approximately 30% of attorneys in Kansas, their representation on the bench is often lower, especially at the district court level. The extent of this disparity varies across Kansas's 31 judicial districts. Some districts, like the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 20th, 27th, and 28th, show reasonable gender diversity relative to their attorney populations. However, a majority of districts fall more than 10% below the target, and one district is significantly below the target.

What obstacles impede the attainment of judicial gender diversity in Kansas?

Several factors impede the attainment of gender diversity in Kansas courts. The requirement of at least five years of legal practice for district court judges can inadvertently limit the pool of eligible women due to the historical underrepresentation of women in law schools. Incumbent judges have an advantage in retention and partisan elections, potentially skewing statistics. The judicial selection system itself plays a role; districts with commission-based systems generally offer better opportunities for women judges compared to those using partisan elections. Other barriers include potential biases in the selection or election processes and the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions within the legal profession.

What are some potential pathways to make the Kansas judicial system more gender-inclusive?

To foster gender inclusivity, Kansas can adopt several strategies. One pathway involves actively promoting the participation of women in all facets of the judicial system. Districts with commission-based systems seem to provide a better opportunity for women judges to be selected. Data-driven strategies should be implemented to identify and address specific barriers to women's advancement in each judicial district. This includes actively working towards eliminating biases within the selection processes. Additionally, it requires a multifaceted approach that acknowledges the obstacles and actively seeks to increase women's representation in the judiciary.

Why is the concept of 'representativeness' important in the context of the Kansas judicial system?

The concept of 'representativeness' emphasizes that courts should reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, encompassing race, gender, religion, and life experiences. This principle is crucial because a diverse judiciary fosters public confidence, ensures varied perspectives in legal interpretation, and promotes justice. When the courts mirror the communities they serve, it enhances the legitimacy and fairness of the judicial system, leading to better outcomes and greater public trust. Without representativeness, there is a risk that certain voices and experiences may be marginalized or overlooked, potentially resulting in inequitable application of the law.

How do the commission system and partisan elections affect judicial gender diversity in Kansas courts?

Kansas employs two primary judicial selection methods: the commission system, used in 17 counties, and partisan elections, used in 14 counties. Districts with commission-based systems generally provide a better opportunity for women judges to be selected. Conventional wisdom suggests that the commission system is more effective at promoting judicial diversity. Understanding the nuances of these selection systems is crucial because it directly impacts who is chosen to serve on the bench and, consequently, the diversity of the judiciary. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses in promoting gender diversity, highlighting the need for continuous evaluation and refinement to ensure equitable representation.