






































Microsoft Word - Volume15.doc


Commonwealth: A Journal of Political Science  Volume 15, Number 2  September 2009

 2009 PPSA/LORL, PA House of Reps. ISSN 0890-2410

Judicial Selection and the Underrepresentation
of Women on the Pennsylvania Courts of

Common Pleas

Heather Frederick1

Slippery Rock University

This article explores several factors affecting the representation
of women on Pennsylvania’s Courts of Common Pleas. First, it
considers whether women are underrepresented as judges on these
courts. Second, it investigates whether women are more likely to
become judges on these courts through partisan election or through
gubernatorial appointment. Third, it examines whether Democratic
governors are more likely than their Republican counterparts to
appoint female judges to these courts. The article concludes that
even though little gender bias is attributable to the method of
selecting judges for the Courts of Common Pleas, women are
nonetheless greatly underrepresented as judges on this level of the
Pennsylvania judiciary. The striking difference between the number
of women in the Pennsylvania bar and the number of female judges
on the state’s Courts of Common Pleas also indicates that women
have not achieved parity on the bench and that the size of the
eligibility pool is not necessarily a valid explanatory factor.

n 2008, the nation witnessed the first competitive female candidate for
the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and the first female

vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party. Yet, media coverage
and public discourse during the campaign made little mention of the
underrepresentation of women in public office. Even when political
scientists address the barriers to female representation, their research
focuses mostly on legislative or executive office. In fact, “only when
Supreme Court vacancies open is there public dialogue on the feasibility
of appointing women” (Tolchin 1977, 877). Although Tolchin wrote
these words in the late 1970s, as recently as 2007 Ruth Bader Ginsberg
expressed concern over being the sole female justice on the U.S.
Supreme Court. The 1970s brought the first organized movement by
feminist organizations to increase the number of women on the bench
when groups such as the National Organization for Women and the

I



16 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

National Women’s Political Caucus lobbied President Jimmy Carter to
appoint a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court—an opportunity he never
received (Kenney 2004, 98; Resnik 1996). Building upon existing
literature concerning barriers to the representation of women in political
institutions, this article examines their representation as judges on the
Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas.

The Underrepresentation of Women in Pennsylvania’s
Judicial System

The Unified Judicial System, created under Pennsylvania’s 1968
constitution, revised the state’s method of judicial recruitment by
requiring state judges to run for office in municipal elections. Under
Section 13b of the state charter, vacancies on the bench are filled by
gubernatorial appointment, subject to the “advice and consent of two-
thirds of the members elected to the Senate.” Once their appointed or
elected terms have expired, judges may seek to renew their positions
through retention elections. Retention elections require merely a “yes” or
“no” vote from the electorate in a judicial district; no opposition
candidates appear on the ballot.

In 2003, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Commission on Racial
and Gender Bias published its Justice System Report, which expressed
concern over the denial of equal rights for women and racial minorities
within the state’s justice system. Although the report addressed issues of
justice and equality for individuals within the judicial system as victims
and attorneys, it did not mention women’s participation, representation,
or experiences as judges. As the Report concluded:

The committee has recommended that all court personnel
throughout the commonwealth receive training in matters such as
civility in the courtroom; cultural diversity and its effect upon
treatment in the courtroom; what constitutes or can be perceived to
constitute racial-, ethnic- and gender-biased language and conduct;
the effect of bias on determinations of credibility and confidence;
and the stereotypes and cultural impediments that inhibit minorities,
persons of different ethnic backgrounds and women from having
confidence in and using the state’s judicial system (Marks,
Liebenberg, and Goodman 2004, 7).



Heather Frederick 17

In addition to discussing whether women and racial minorities
believe they have equal access to Pennsylvania’s judicial system and that
it treats them fairly, the report asserted that existing behavior within the
system “compromises the ability of minority and women attorneys to
advocate effectively for their clients” (Marks, Liebenberg, and Goodman
2004, 6). It noted too that “disrespectful and biased conduct and attitudes
have a serious negative impact on the administration of justice and the
public’s confidence in the justice system” (Marks, Liebenberg, and
Goodman 2004, 6). The report made no recommendation for rectifying
these problems, however, other than advocating sensitivity training.
There was no suggestion that a more diverse Pennsylvania bench, one
that includes representative numbers of women and persons of color,
would improve the justice system for all citizens in the Commonwealth.

The existing literature on female judges does not extend to
Pennsylvania, nor does the existing literature on Pennsylvania judges
analyze women on the bench. The underrepresentation of female judges
on the Courts of Common Pleas may reflect the underrepresentation of
women in virtually every aspect of public life in Pennsylvania, which
ranks forty-fourth among the states in women’s representation in elected
and appointed office (Pennsylvania Center for Women, Politics, and
Public Policy 2008). Inadequate representation of women in public office
adversely affects policymaking efforts to aid women in Pennsylvania.
According to the Pennsylvania Center for Women, Politics, and Public
Policy (2008), “studies have given the state average to failing grades in
policy affecting women from working conditions and wages, to support
for education and health for women.”

The Literature on Female Judicial Representation

Increasing the number of female judges in the Pennsylvania judiciary
may translate into substantially less courtroom bias against female
lawyers, female litigants, and female victims while increasing the
legitimacy of the state’s justice system in the eyes of its citizens.
Previous studies of multiple levels of courts and multiple state courts
have shown that female jurists make a difference in the application of
justice. Female judges tend to be more supportive of women’s rights
issues, even when their political ideology is included as a control
variable (Allen and Wall 1987; Cook 1981, 1988; Crowe 2000; Davis,



18 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

Haire, and Songer 1993; Kuerstein and Manning 2000; Martin 1990;
Songer, Davis, and Haire 1994; but see also Segal 2000; Walker and
Barrow 1985). Female judges are also more likely to believe that gender
is pertinent in some instances, whereas male lawyers and judges “report
that gender has little or no effect, in courtroom or in law firm, on process
or on outcome” (Resnik 1996, 963). Female judges, regardless of their
political ideology, are more likely than male judges to support women
bringing sex discrimination claims (Moyer 2008; Segal Diascro 2008),
and they are also more likely to hear such cases (Abrahamson 1993;
Angel 1991; Bowman 1998–99; Palmer 2001a, 89; Schafran 1985).
“Moreover, even a single woman justice may have a noticeable impact
on case outcomes; the mere presence of a woman on the bench is one of
the best predictors of decisions in favor of women filing sex-
discrimination claims (Gyrski, Main, and Dixon 1986; O’Connor and
Segal 1990)” (Palmer 2001b, 237).

Nevertheless, there is scant support for the claim that increasing the
number of female judges would transform the justice system from an
adversarial, zero-sum game into a cooperative paradise characterized by
a “feminine style” of leadership inherently able to resolve conflict and
mediate differences (Behuniak-Long 1992, 427). Scholars have found
little connection between the presence of female judges on a court and a
Carol Gilligan-like “difference jurisprudence” (Davis 1992–93, 171;
Finley 1989; Gilligan 1982; Karst 1984; Menkel-Meadow 1985; Palmer
2001b, 237; Sherry 1986).

Two recent studies, however, found noticeable gender differences
between male and female judges. Segal Diascro (2008, 8) concluded that
when women are plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases in federal
district courts, “gender does account for differences in judicial rulings.”
Segal Diascro’s findings suggest that empathy may play an integral role
in such cases. “Female judges vote in support of female plaintiffs more
often than [do] their male colleagues because they feel and understand
the plight of these women in these cases” (Segal Diascro 2008, 8). Moyer
(2008, 27) applied the “difference jurisprudence” theory to civil rights
cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals and found that female judges are
more likely to exhibit their differences when other female judges are
present on the panel. “As the proportion of possible mixed panels
increases in a circuit, so does the propensity of female judges to support
the position of civil rights plaintiffs” (Moyer 2008, 27).



Heather Frederick 19

In contrast to research showing the positive effects of female judges,
some literature underscores the need for gender balance in the judiciary
as a means of combating sexism and sex-based stereotypes. “One study
that focused exclusively on evaluations of women judges found that male
lawyers perceived women judges as inferior to male judges on every
measure used (Sterling 1993)” (Resnik 1996, 971). Women also report
bias in judicial selection. For instance, one female lawyer being
interviewed by a male legislator for a judicial position in Virginia
insisted that he apologize for using “the term ‘femi-Nazi’ during the
interview, for asking her about her opinion on abortion and for allegedly
implying she should contribute to Republicans” (Minium 2007). Not
surprisingly, female lawyers and judges have consistently used the term
“old-boys’ network” in characterizing both the state and federal courts
(Burleigh 1990; Kenney 2004, 99).

The Problem of Majority-Male Judicial Systems

Male domination of judicial systems not only excludes “women’s
perspectives” (Kenney 2004, 100–101), but it also lends credence to the
argument that the “old boys’ network” is “to blame for women’s under-
representation at all levels of the legal profession. The small number of
women judges . . . undermines public confidence in the judiciary”
(Kenney 2004, 99). Judicial rulings would be deemed more legitimate if
the bench reflected the demographic structure of society. The inclusion
of historically unrepresented groups within the judicial system fosters
descriptive representation and thus the public belief that law and justice
are fair, democratic, and unbiased. As the state of Georgia has noted
regarding gender bias in its own judicial system:

Determining whether and how gender bias affects the selection
of judges is fundamental to the evaluation of gender bias in the
judicial system. Public belief that the judiciary is unbiased is
essential to the effective and orderly functioning of the court system
and to the authority the judiciary exercises over society. Ultimately,
the public perception of fairness is critical if the judicial system is to
function at all (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System
1992, 7).

The idea that justice is blind and that the personal characteristics and
experiences of individual judges have no effect on rulings, judgments, or



20 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

viewpoints is untenable. In order for the justice system and the judiciary
to be perceived by citizens as impartial, fair, and unbiased, judicial
selection systems must contain no gender discrimination, either covert or
overt. To assess whether women have equal opportunity to achieve a
position on Pennsylvania’s Courts of Common Pleas, it is useful to see
what other states, municipalities, and nations have concluded about their
own systems. The state of Georgia noted in a Task Force Report that, “A
judiciary equally open to women and men is essential in achieving
justice for the community. It is crucial to remove obstacles to equal
opportunity for women attorneys to ascend to the bench” (Commission
on Gender Bias in the Judicial System 1992, 768). As the report
concluded:

Discrimination on the basis of sex (although perhaps
unintentional) is pervasive in the judicial appointment and election
processes in Georgia. Some women lawyers have been denied equal
opportunity to judicial appointments by a system which results in
token appointments. Some male lawyers have been antagonistic to
the efforts of women candidates to be elevated to the bench
(Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System 1992, 769).

Research on female judges in the District of Columbia found that
stereotypes and assumptions based on gender and other distinguishing
characteristics affect courtroom interactions.

For example, when asked if a federal judge had questioned their
status as lawyers or assumed that they were not lawyers, 1% of the
white male lawyers responding to a survey of the federal courts
within the District of Columbia responded affirmatively, whereas
about 10% of the white female lawyers and the male lawyers of
color said that they had that experience. In contrast, about a third of
the women lawyers of color reported that a judge had questioned
their status as lawyers (Resnik 1996, 957).

Similarly, a study by the Office of Court Administration and the
State Bar of Texas (1998) revealed that male and female attorneys
perceive gender bias from the bench very differently. Only 14% of
women attorneys believed courts treat males and females the same
compared with 44% of male attorneys. Moreover, 30% of judges and
almost half of court staff thought women were underrepresented as
judges in Texas. The Georgia study likewise noted that “considering the
number of qualified women eligible for judicial appointment, the number



Heather Frederick 21

of women who have ascended to the bench (by appointment or by
election) demonstrates serious underinclusion—a phenomenon which
may result from gender bias” (Commission on Gender Bias in the
Judicial System 1992, 768).

Abroad, women’s groups in Great Britain have fought for equal
representation in European courts (Kenney 2002). The British women’s
movement has demanded more female judges in the judiciary (Frey
2003; Jenness 1995; Kenney 2004, 89; McCann 1994; Spees 2003), and
it has argued in court for “a gender-representative bench, applying
international treaties mandating gender balance in decision making and
equality for women to the composition of the judiciary and challenging
the legitimacy of decisions on gender sensitive issues made by an all
male panel” (Kenney 2004, 90). Although these efforts were ultimately
unsuccessful in court, a dialogue emerged concerning the
underrepresentation of women in every aspect of British government.

Why Women are Underrepresented

Incumbency is one explanation for the paucity of women on the
bench. In many states, including Pennsylvania and Georgia, judges are
not term-limited but may be reelected in a merit retention election. “This
provision was designed to remove judges from the pressures of the
political arena once they begin their first terms of office” (Pennsylvania’s
Unified Judicial System 2008). The benefits of incumbency for sitting
judges, most of whom are men, exacerbate the problems women have
ascending to the state bench by diminishing their opportunities to
campaign for or be appointed to a judicial post.

Another reason for the underinclusion of women on the bench is
tokenism. The focus of most research concerning female judges has been
on their status as tokens (Kanter 1977; Palmer 2001b, 235; Yoder 1991).
The presence of one female judge on state supreme courts significantly
lowers the possibility of another woman being elected or selected to fill
subsequent vacancies, especially in states that use the appointment
method of judicial selection (Bratton and Spill 2000; Palmer 2001a, 94).
“For those who are responsible for appointing state judiciaries, the
problem of gender diversification is evidently ‘solved’ by the addition of
a single woman (Bratton and Spill 2000, 16)” (Palmer 2001a, 94). This
effect has been shown to occur on the federal courts as well. President



22 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

Clinton “faced increasing resistance to his judicial appointees” (Goldman
and Slotnick 1997; Hartley and Holmes 1997; Palmer 2001a, 94).
Separate studies by the Citizens for Independent Courts and The USA
Today found that the Senate took an average of five months to act on
Clinton’s male nominees for the federal bench but an average of eight
months to act on his female nominees for the same types of positions
(Biskupic 2000). To Palmer (2001a), “this suggests that numerical gains
by women in the judiciary are not linear or constant. They can actually
create a certain amount of backlash” (94). Like incumbency, tokenism as
a barrier to women’s representation exists on all levels and throughout all
branches of government in the United States.

A third possible cause of the underrepresentation of women in public
office is that there are fewer women than men in the “pipeline” or
“eligibility pool” from which candidates are chosen for higher office,
regardless of whether those doing the choosing are political elites or
average voters. As one scholar explains:

In the American electoral arena, there is a hierarchy of political
officials. In other words, the typical career path for politicians is law
school, private practice, then serving in local and state offices, and
then running for Congress. Thus, once women begin attending law
school and serving in these lower-level political offices in greater
numbers, only then will we see serious increases in the number of
women serving in the House and eventually the Senate. . . . A
similar explanation has been offered for the dearth of women in the
judiciary, known as the “eligibility pool” theory (Cook 1988;
Martin 1997) (Palmer 2001b, 235).

The underrepresentation of women in the judiciary has similarly
been attributed to the absence of qualified female candidates from which
to choose (Alozie 1990; Githens 1995, 1). “The eligible pool theory
claims that given the number of qualified female applicants available,
there are just too few women to alter the existing gender pattern of
judicial appointment” (Githens 1995, 4). Yet, this theory does not
completely explain the dearth of female judges (Cook 1981; Martin
1997; Palmer 2001b, 237).

The state of Georgia concluded that the judicial selection process
“unintentionally applies different standards and criteria for male and
female candidates, e.g., according less weight to traditionally ‘female’
areas of practice with more weight accorded to fields viewed as



Heather Frederick 23

predominantly ‘male’” (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial
System 1992, 770). For appointments to the federal courts, the American
Bar Association tends to give higher ratings to attorneys who are older,
wealthy, and experienced in the corporate sector, characteristics
traditionally associated more with male than female attorneys (Allen
1985; Githens 1995, 6). Such stereotypes about the characteristics and
experiences of qualified attorneys disadvantage women since they are
more likely to practice law in the public sector. “It is perceived that
female candidates for judicial appointments are subject to stereotyped
expectations about appropriate experiences, stature, and demeanor which
devalue their abilities and background. Inquiries about how candidates
handle marital circumstances and children occur with women and not
with men” (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System 1992,
770).

In some circumstances, however, these stereotypes and gender
differences in law practice may increase the number of female judges. A
study of Baltimore judges found that even though “women were
attending law schools in greater and greater numbers, life after law
school was not particularly promising for them” (Githens 1995, 21).
Facing difficulty in being recruited by prominent law firms at which they
might eventually win a prestigious partnership, these female lawyers
turned to the public sector instead. “Perhaps this accounts for the fact
that so many well-qualified women sought appointments to the bench.
Similarly, African-Americans had reduced choices in the private sector.
Might it not be that for women and African-Americans an appointment
to a judgeship represented high status and prestige, whereas for white
men prestige meant a partnership?” (Githens 1995, 21). While this may
have been the case in Baltimore, the fact remains that female attorneys
face greater obstacles in obtaining a seat on the bench. Regardless of
whether these obstacles are due to voter stereotypes or to gubernatorial
selection, “either the decision makers are discriminating or the criteria
are unfair” (Kenney 2004, 90–91).

Data and Results

One of the initial goals of this article was to discover whether female
judges on the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas were more likely to
achieve their position through election or gubernatorial appointment.



24 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

Although evidence shows that gubernatorial appointment systems are
more likely to diversify the bench with regard to gender, “this effect
operates primarily to diversify all-male courts” (Bratton and Spill 2002,
504). Data compiled for this article included all judges who served at
least one day on the bench in the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas
between 1995 and 2006. The list of 609 Courts of Common Pleas judges
was derived from the 1995–2006 Annual Reports of the Pennsylvania
Unified Judicial System. The Pennsylvania Manual (1995-2005)
provided the biography of each judge, which included whether the judge
was appointed by the governor or elected by the voters. Any missing data
were sought on the Internet. Fewer than 10 judges were deleted from the
data set due to a complete lack of information regarding their method of
attaining office.

While most judges on the Courts of Common Pleas are initially
elected to the bench by voters, 36% of those serving between 1995 and
2006 obtained their post through gubernatorial appointment. As Table 1
shows, of the 609 Common Pleas judges serving on the bench between
1995 and 2006, 387 had been elected by the voters and 222 had been
appointed by the governor prior to a retention election. While voters as
well as governors overwhelmingly selected men for the Courts of
Common Pleas, there is no significant difference in the percentage of
female judges who are elected and appointed.

Table 1

All Judges Serving on the Pennsylvania
Courts of Common Pleas, 1995-2006 (609)

Elected (387) Appointed (222)

Male 305 79% Male 183 82%

Female 82 21% Female 39 18%

It might be assumed that more women would win a seat on the
Courts of Common Pleas through gubernatorial appointment than
through popular election, especially under Democratic governors. The
literature supports this assumption. “The conventional wisdom is that
women generally fare better in the appointment than the election



Heather Frederick 25

process” (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System 1992, 769;
also see Fund for Modern Courts 1985). Nevertheless, more women—
and a higher percentage of women—achieve their position on the Courts
of Common Pleas through election than through gubernatorial
appointment. The state of Georgia similarly found that “more women
judges in the State and superior courts in Georgia first took office by
election, than by appointment” (Commission on Gender Bias in the
Judicial System 1992; also see Alozie 1990).

Table 2, which limits the sample to judges elected or appointed since
1995, reveals a pattern relevant to the “pipeline” and “eligibility pool”
theories. While female judges in the entire sample were slightly more
likely to be elected by the voters than appointed by the governor, those
joining the Courts of Common Pleas since 1995 were 6% more likely to
have attained their position through gubernatorial appointment than
through popular election. These results highlight differences in judges
appointed before and after 1995 for which there may be a variety of
explanations. The disparity here may suggest voter bias in electing
women to the judiciary. A more likely explanation, however, is found in
the literature concerning female legislative candidates: women are less
likely than men to run for political office. The women most qualified for
the bench may have a greater tendency to wait for a gubernatorial
appointment than to engage in the adversarial battle of campaign politics.
Table 2 also indicates a higher percentage of women joining the bench
since 1995. Although women are not becoming judges on the Courts of
Common Pleas in proportion to their share of the general population, the
data in Table 2 offer some support for the “pipeline” and “eligibility
pool” theories. More women are attaining positions in the Pennsylvania
judiciary in recent years than was the case previously.

Table 2

Judges Elected or Appointed to the Pennsylvania
Courts of Common Pleas, 1995-2006 (254)

Elected (186) Appointed (68)

Male 140 75% Male 41 69%

Female 46 25% Female 21 31%



26 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

Although gubernatorial appointment is not an effective method for
increasing the number of female judges on Pennsylvania’s Courts of
Common Pleas, the political party affiliation of the governor might be
thought to affect the number of female judges appointed. The literature
supports the hypothesis that Democratic governors may be more likely to
appoint women to government positions since “the Democratic Party
does enjoy greater support among women and is perceived as being more
supportive of women’s issues” (Solowiej, Martinek, and Brunell 2005,
561). As Table 3 shows, however, the party affiliation of the governor
has no significant effect on whether a man or a woman is chosen to fill a
vacancy on the Courts of Common Pleas. Of the judges serving on the
Courts of Common Pleas between 1995 and 2006, 88 were appointed by
Republican governors. About 83% of those appointments went to men,
while about 17% went to women. The results for Democratic
gubernatorial appointments are strikingly identical. Of the 128 judges
appointed to the Courts of Common Pleas by Democratic governors,
83% were men and 17% were women. Consequently, there is little
evidence that the governor’s party affiliation has any impact on
increasing the number of female judges on the Courts of Common Pleas
in Pennsylvania.

Table 3

All Judges Serving on the Pennsylvania
Courts of Common Pleas, 1995-2006 (208)

Appointed by a Democratic
Governor (122)

Appointed by a Republican
Governor (86)

Male 101 83% Male 71 83%

Female 21 17% Female 15 17%

On the other hand, the data for judges appointed since 1995 show
more striking differences. As Table 4 indicates, while Republican
governors had the opportunity to appoint almost twice as many judges to
the Courts of Common Pleas as did Democratic governors, they
appointed 6% fewer female judges. Table 4 also shows that not only are
Democratic governors more likely to select women for vacancies on the



Heather Frederick 27

Courts of Common Pleas, but since 1995 women in general have been
more likely than men to be appointed to the bench. Once again the data
support the idea that more women have become judges on the Courts of
Common Pleas in recent years because more women have been in the
“pipeline” or “eligibility pool” since 1995 than before.

Table 4

All Judges Serving on the Pennsylvania
Courts of Common Pleas, 1995-2006 (68)

Appointed by a Democratic
Governor (23)

Appointed by a Republican
Governor (86)

Male 15 65% Male 32 71%

Female 8 35% Female 13 29%

Still, the relatively low number of female judges shows that women
are woefully underrepresented as judges in Pennsylvania considering
their share of the state’s population. Women account for more than half
of Pennsylvania’s citizenry but less than a third of its judges on the
Courts of Common Pleas. This gender disparity does little to improve the
condition of women in Pennsylvania, and it contributes substantially to
the Commonwealth’s forty-fourth place ranking among the states in
terms of women’s representation in elected and appointed office.

Women are also underrepresented as judges on the Courts of
Common Pleas relative to their share of the organized bar. In 2006,
women comprised 28% of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, 31% of
lawyers in private firms, 35% of lawyers in district attorneys’ offices,
and 35% of lawyers in public defenders’ offices (Pennsylvania Bar
Association Commission on Women in the Profession 2006). In the same
year, there were no women on the Courts of Common Pleas in 36 of
Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. Excluding Philadelphia, which has 43
female Court of Common Pleas judges, or 46% of all Philadelphia
judges, women comprise 13% of the Court of Common Pleas judges in
the remaining 66 counties (Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission
on Women in the Profession 2006).



28 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

There is a large disparity in many Pennsylvania counties between the
percentage of female judges and the percentage of female American Bar
Association (ABA) members. The raw numbers of male and female
judges in each Pennsylvania county between 2002 and 2006 are
displayed in the Appendix (pp. 30-31). The variance in the number of
male and female judges becomes even more striking when the percentage
of female judges in each county is compared with the percentage therein
of female ABA members.

Only five Pennsylvania counties had a higher percentage of female
judges than female ABA members for the entire five-year period
(Chester, Monroe, Philadelphia, Union, and Washington). Ten additional
counties exhibit at least one year with a higher percentage of female
judges than female ABA members (Bucks in 2002; Erie in 2002, 2003,
and 2004; Forest in 2006; Indiana in 2004, 2005, and 2006; Juniata in
2005 and 2006; Lycoming in 2003, 2004, and 2005; Perry in 2005 and
2006; Snyder in 2005 and 2006; Susquehanna in 2002, 2003, and 2004;
and Warren in 2006). Two Pennsylvania counties (Cameron for the
entire five-year period and Forest in 2002 and 2004) stand out for having
no female ABA members. This anomaly is due largely to the small
population of these counties and their scarcity of attorneys, whether male
or female.

Aggregate results for the studied time period show little variance
from 2002 to 2006. The five-year average of the number of male judges
per county in Pennsylvania is five, whereas the average is 1.35 for
female judges. During the five-year period, female judges accounted for
only 10.6% of all judges on the Courts of Common Pleas. The average
number of female ABA members in all Pennsylvania counties was 21.6,
which results in an 11-point disparity between the percentage of female
judges and the percentage of female ABA members in the state from
2002 to 2006. These figures do not change significantly when
Philadelphia County, which has the largest number of female judges, is
excluded from the calculations.

Conclusions

Women in Pennsylvania are substantially underrepresented on the
state’s Courts of Common Pleas. A large disparity exists between the
number of male and female judges on these courts even when the smaller



Heather Frederick 29

“eligibility pool” of women and their narrower “professional pipeline”
are taken into consideration. The striking difference between the number
of women in the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the number of female
judges on the Courts of Common Pleas indicates that women have not
achieved parity on the state bench and that the “eligibility pool” and
“professional pipeline” explanations are not necessarily determinative.
The underrepresentation of women as judges on the Courts of Common
Pleas is consistent with their underrepresentation in public office
generally in Pennsylvania. This gender disparity may also reflect
differences in how men and women pursuing legal careers define and
weigh their personal and professional values.

Although women are significantly disadvantaged in obtaining seats
on the state’s Courts of Common Pleas, whether through gubernatorial
appointment or by popular election, this study finds that little gender bias
is attributable to either of these methods of selecting judges. Be that as it
may, the fact remains that women are not represented as judges on the
Courts of Common Pleas in numbers commensurate with their share of
the legal profession, much less their portion of the state population as a
whole. Therefore, while Alozie (1996, 124) was right to argue that
changing judicial selection systems is not the answer to improving the
representation of women on state supreme courts, greater awareness on
the part of the electorate and the governor of the underrepresentation of
women serving as judges Pennsylvania’s Courts of Common Pleas may
aid in rectifying the problem. The findings presented here are intended to
contribute to that awareness.

Notes
1

Special thanks to Alex McNeill for her tireless ability to obtain data believed to
be impossible to locate. An earlier version of this paper was presented in 2008 at
the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania Political Science Association
Conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.



30 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

Appendix

Numbers and Percentages of Male and Female Judges on the
Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas, Percentages of Female ABA

Members, and Percent Difference Between Female Judges and
Female ABA Members in Pennsylvania Counties, 2002–2006



Heather Frederick 31

Appendix, Continued



32 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

References

Abrahamson, Shirley. 1993. “Toward a Courtroom of One’s Own: An Appellate Court
Judge Looks at Gender Bias.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 61: 1209–1221.

Allen, David W. 1985. “Recruitment of Women to State Supreme Courts: Cultural and
Economic Conditions.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Chicago.

Allen, David W., and Diane Wall. 1987. “The Behavior of Women State Supreme Court
Justices: Are They Tokens or Outsiders?” Justice System Journal 12(2): 232–245.

Alozie, Nicolas O. 1990. “Distribution of Women and Minority Judges.” Social Science
Quarterly 71: 315–325.

Alozie, Nicolas O. 1996. “Selection Methods and the Recruitment of Women to State
Courts of Last Resort.” Social Science Quarterly 77(1): 110–126.

Angel, Marina. 1991. “Sexual Harassment by Judges.” University of Miami Law Review
45: 817–835.

Behuniak-Long, Susan. 1992. “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the Power of Maternal
Legal Thinking.” Review of Politics 54: 417–444.

Biskupic, Joan. 2000. “Politics Snares Court, Hopes of Minorities and Women.” USA
Today, August 22.

Bowman, Cynthia Grant. 1998–99. “Bibliographic Essay: Women in the Legal
Profession.” American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law 7:
149–175.

Bratton, Kathleen, and Rorie Spill. 2000. “Moving Beyond Tokenism: The Effect of
Existing Diversity on the Selection of Women to State Supreme Courts.” Presented
at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Bratton, Kathleen, and Rorie L. Spill. 2002. “Existing Diversity and Judicial Selection:
The Role of the Appointment Method in Establishing Gender Diversity in State
Supreme Courts.” Social Science Quarterly 83(2): 504-518.

Burleigh, Nina. 1990. “Cook County's new judicial districts: Less or different politics?”
Illinois Issues. vol. 19. February.

Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. 1992. “Gender and Justice in the
Courts: A Report to the Supreme Court of Georgia.” Georgia State University Law
Review 8(2): 539–807.

Cook, Beverly. 1981. “Will Women Judges Make a Difference in Women’s Legal
Rights? A Prediction from Attitudes and Simulated Behavior.” In Women, Power,
and Political Systems, eds. Margherita Rendel and Georgina Achworth. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.

Cook, Beverly. 1988. “Women as Judges.” Women in the Judicial Process. Washington,
D.C.: American Political Science Association.

Crowe, Nancy. 2000. “Interactions Between Judges’ and Plaintiffs’ Sexes on the U.S.
Court of Appeals.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Washington, D.C.



Heather Frederick 33

Davis, Sue. 1992–93. “Do Women Judges Speak ‘In a Different Voice?’ Carol Gilligan,
Feminist Legal Theory, and the Ninth Circuit.” Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 8:
143–173.

Davis, Sue, Susan Haire, and Donald Songer. 1993. “Voting Behavior and Gender on
the U.S. Court of Appeals.” Judicature 77(3): 129–133.

Finley, Lucinda. 1989. “Breaking Women’s Silence in Law: The Dilemma of the
Gendered Nature of Legal Reasoning.” Notre Dame Law Review 64: 886–910.

Frey, Barbara. 2003. “Electing Women Judges to the International Criminal Court.”
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/9681/fair_representation.pdf.

Fund for Modern Courts, Inc. 1985. The Success of Women and Minorities in Achieving
Judicial Office. New York: Fund for Modern Courts, Inc.

Githens, Marianne. 1995. “Getting Appointed to the State Court: The Gender
Dimension.” Women and Politics 15(4): 1–24.

Goldman, Sheldon and Elliot Slotnick. 1997. “Clinton’s First Term Judiciary: Many
Bridges to Cross.” Judicature 80: 254–273.

Gyrski, Gerard, Eleanor Main, and William Dixon. 1986. “Models of State High Court
Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases.” Journal of Politics 48: 143–155.

Hartley, Roger and Lisa Holmes. 1997. “Increasing Senate Scrutiny of Lower Federal
Court Nominees.” Judicature 80: 274–278.

Jenness, Valerie. 1995. “Social Movement Growth, Domain Expansion, and Framing
Processes: The Gay/Lesbian Movement and Violence Against Gays and Lesbians as
a Social Problem.” Social Problems 42(1): 145–170.

Jensen, Jennifer M. and Wendy L. Martinek. 2008. “The Effects of Race and Gender on
the Judicial Ambitions of State Trial Court Judges.” Political Research Quarterly
September 9.

Kanter, Rosabeth. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Karst, Kenneth. 1984. “Woman’s Constitution.” Duke Law Journal 3: 447–508.

Kenney, Sally J. 2002. “Breaking the Silence: Gender Mainstreaming and the
Composition of the European Court of Justice.” Feminist Legal Studies 10(3): 257–
270.

Kuerstein, Ashlyn and Ken Manning. 2000. “Women Judges on the Lower Federal
Courts: Are they Different from their Brethren?” Unpublished manuscript.

Marks, Lynn A., Roberta D. Liebenberg, and Shira J. Goodman. 2004. “Assault on Bias:
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee Offers Concrete Steps to Improve the
System.” Voices and Views: A Newsletter from the Pennsylvania Bar Association
Commission of Women in the Profession. Winter: 6–8.

Martin, Elaine. 1990. “Men and Women on the Bench: Vive la Difference?” Judicature
73(4): 204–208.

Martin, Elaine. 1997. “Glass Ceiling or Skylight? Women on State Supreme Courts: A
Preliminary Test of the Eligible Pool Theory.” Presented at the annual meeting of
the Southern Political Science Association, Norfolk, VA.

https://webmail.ursinus.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/9681/fair_representation.pdf


34 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ON
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS

Martin, Elaine, and Barry Pyle. 1999. “Glick and Emmert Revisited: Gender and Racial
Diversification of State Supreme Courts, Preliminary Findings.” Presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

McCann, Michael W. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of
Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1985. “Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a
Women’s Lawyering Process.” Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 1: 39–63.

Minium, Harry. 2007. “Democrats laud Rerras’ judicial picks for Norfolk.” The
(Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot, February 16.

Moyer, Laura P. 2008. “Gender Diversification in the U.S. Courts of Appeals: Testing
the Critical Mass Hypothesis.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American
Political Science Association, Boston.

O’Connor, Karen and Jeffrey Segal. 1990. “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the
Supreme Court’s Reaction to Its First Female Member.” Women and Politics 10(2):
95–103.

Office of Court Administration and State Bar of Texas. 1998. “The Courts and the Legal
Profession in Texas—The Insider's Perspective: A Survey of Judges, Court
Personnel, and Attorneys,” Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts and the Legal
Profession in Texas, Austin, TX. http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/publictrust
/INDEX.HTM.

Palmer, Barbara. 2001a. “Women in the American Judiciary: Their Influence and
Impact.” Women and Politics, vol. 23(3): 89–99.

Palmer, Barbara. 2001b. “‘To Do Justly’: The Integration of Women into the American
Judiciary.” PSOnline. www.apsanet.org. June: 235–239.

Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. 2006. “12th

Annual Report Card.” http://www.pabar.org/pdf/wiprc06.pdf#search=%22
commission.

Pennsylvania Center for Women, Politics, and Public Policy. 2008. Personal email sent
from Allison Lowe, Center Director at Chatham University, March 1.

Pennsylvania Manual. 1995–2005. Volumes 112–118. Harrisburg, PA: Department of
General Services.

Pennsylvania.gov website. 2008. “A Brief History of the Courts of Pennsylvania.”

Pennsylvania’s Unified Judicial System. 2008. http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/
JudicialQualifications.htm.

Resnik, Judith. 1996. “Asking about Gender in Courts.” Signs 21(4): 952–990.

Schafran, Lynn Hecht. 1985. “Educating the Judiciary About Gender Bias: The National
Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts
and the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Women in the Courts.” Women’s
Rights Law Reporter 9(2): 109–124.

Segal, Jennifer. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton’s
District Court Appointees.” Political Research Quarterly 53(1): 137–150.

http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/publictrust /INDEX.HTM
http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/publictrust /INDEX.HTM
http://www.apsanet.org/
http://www.pabar.org/pdf/wiprc06.pdf#search=%22 commission
http://www.pabar.org/pdf/wiprc06.pdf#search=%22 commission
http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/ JudicialQualifications.htm
http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/ JudicialQualifications.htm


Heather Frederick 35

Segal Diascro, Jennifer. 2008. “Empathy from the Bench: A New Perspective on Gender
and Judicial Decision Making.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American
Political Science Association, Boston.

Sherry, Suzanna. 1986. Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice in Constitutional
Adjudication.” Virginia Law Review 72: 543–616.

Solowiej, Lisa A., Wendy L. Martinek, and Thomas L. Brunell. 2005. “Partisan Politics:
The Impact of Party in the Confirmation of Minority and Female Federal Court
Nominees.” Party Politics 11(5): 557–577.

Songer, Donald, Sue Davis, and Susan Haire. 1994. “A Reappraisal of Diversification in
the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics
56(2): 425–439.

Spees, Pam. 2003. “Women’s Advocacy in the Creation of the International Criminal
Court: Changing the Landscapes of Justice and Power.” Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 28(4): 1233–1254.

Sterling, Joyce S. 1993. “The Impact of Gender Bias on Judging: Survey of Attitudes
Toward Women Judges.” Colorado Lawyer 22 (February): 257–258.

Tolchin, Susan. 1977. “The Exclusion of Women from the Judicial Process.” Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2(4): 877–887.

Walker, Thomas and Deborah Barrow. 1985. “The Diversification of the Federal Bench:
Policy and Process Ramifications.” Journal of Politics 47: 596–617.

Yoder, Janice. 1991. “Rethinking Tokenism: Looking Beyond the Numbers.” Gender
and Society 5: 178-92.


