ALL-STATE SUMMIT FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 17-18, 2008
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
Overview
On October 17, 2008, representatives from six of the seven states in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals gathered at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis to learn from each other about how to advance gender diversity on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and thereby improve the quality of justice within the Circuit.
The meeting started out with a Minnesota community-wide awareness building event sponsored by the University of St. Thomas Holloran Center on Ethical Leadership in the Professions. Sherrilyn Ifill, a nationally recognized, dynamic speaker on issues of diversity and the bench, keynoted a lunch. Following the keynote, Judges Diana Murphy and Michael Melloy talked about their work on the Eighth Circuit bench. Over 150 people attended the event, dropping off supporter forms on their way out.
The Summit that followed was a working meeting. More than thirty participants left on October 18 with new ideas about how to hit the ground running in their state and make the many qualified women who would make excellent appellate judges visible to decision-makers. The talented and connected women around the table left energized, with a strong support network across the circuit and ideas for how to overcome challenges, create a pipeline, and raise awareness by effectively reaching out to other organizations and the media.
Summit Participants
 Thirty-six women participated in some part of the Summit, with about twenty-five comprising a core group. About half of this core group was from Minnesota and about half from other states in the circuit. The women around the table were diverse in age, background and connection to the issue. The majority were from academia (11) and law firms (13). Four were current or former judges, one was a journalist, and two were current law school students. Many were active in and/or current or former presidents of the women lawyers group in their state. All were passionate about the Infinity Project mission and eager to build on previous efforts in their state to create a more gender diverse bench.
Eighth Circuit History
During the first Summit session, Professors Sally Kenney (University of Minnesota) and Teri Beiner (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) gave participants a historical framework upon which to build current efforts. They covered the formal constitutional requirements, practices of various presidents and the role of the American Bar Association. Kenney and Beiner discussed the changing role of senators, “senatorial courtesy,” the blue slip process and the filibuster and the way past practice in these areas affect current strategies. They also examined the impact various factors such as party, ideology, legal background, committee assignments, presidential goals and other issues have on the appointment power of individual senators. History suggests that all senators in the region need to be educated about the project and its goals, but some are more critical than others based on these criteria. Led by Beiner and Kenney, the group tackled the issue of statutory requirements and past practice related to “state” appointments to the circuit bench and how these affected the regional work of the project. Finally, participants talked a little about the difficulties women have historically faced in the appointment and confirmation processes, with in-depth discussion of the failed nomination of Bonnie Campbell to the Eighth Circuit. This discussion segued into a broader conversation about challenges and opportunities within individual states.
Challenges and Opportunities
These two aspects of the situation blurred together as participants for each state shared their perspective during the second Summit session which was facilitated by Lisa Brabbit, Assistant Dean at St. Thomas School of Law. Often problems or challenges also presented an opportunity. Participants raised issues in the following areas:
- List development
- "Having a ready list of qualified candidates and the men who will support women and use their political clout."
- "How to define qualified. Political connections versus merit."
- "Finding the right candidate who meets both aspects: merit and political connections/drive.”
- "Women of influence and power need to step up.”
- "Researching state judicial qualifications.”
- "Fine line between political enough and too political.”
- Pipeline development
- Women need help with the preparation process.”
- “Read ‘Women Don’t Ask’ and encourage women not to be passive and wait to be invited for the opportunity.”
- “Education of women, campaign school.”
- “Encourage people who have merit and political connections.”
- Broadening support within the legal community
- “Get bar associations involved locally.”
- “Form ABA relationship.”
- “Get involved in sections and rise up through ABA community.”
- “Host CLEs and have speakers talk about this issue and how if affects a particular practice area.”
- “Convince young people to become involved, new students would understand the issue in new ways.”
- Diversifying support beyond the legal community
- “Importance of inclusivity in the process, not solely an issue for women’s groups.”
- “Don’t rely only on the legal community. Look to feminist organizations, League of Women Voters, Emily’s List, White House Project and other non-partisan groups.”
- Message development/framing
- “Talking about how, not why diversity is needed on the bench.”
- “Convincing people that women on the bench makes a difference.”
- “Reframing the discussion to something like: How can you get justice out of court based on discrimination?”
- “Put other side on the defensive – give them the burden of proof.”
- “Discrimination is invisible, make it transparent.”
- Infiltrating the inside process/presidential transition
- “Investigating who is on the judicial appointment committee and how to get on it.”
- “Pushing agenda through friendly committees.”
- “Take advantage of new administration, new chance to give President direction.”
- Developing or strengthening relationships with Senators
- “No knowledge of issue in Senator’s offices.”
Candidate Development
Carolyn Chalmers, University of Minnesota’s Office of Conflict Resolution, and Kate Hibbard, Greene Espel P.L.L.P., led the next session focused on candidate development. They outlined the key goals in this area:
- Encouraging women to self-identify as qualified candidates.
- Sharing information with decision-makers about the need for appointment of and availability of qualified women.
- Coaching and mentoring up-and-coming women lawyers and judges
The participants discussed the role of gender diversity in “feeder” courts and agreed that it is important for the project to be working on these courts as well, particularly in states where an Eighth Circuit vacancy is unlikely in the near future.
Chalmers and Hibbard then talked about identifying names of women in each state who are qualified. Two categories emerged from the conversation.
- A List: Women in conventional feeder pool of current judgeships
- B List: Women in other categories that should be considered, broadening the definition of “qualified”
The group then identified the categories of women that would be placed on a state level A List:
- Federal District Courts
- Magistrates
- Bankruptcy
- Bank Appeal Court
- State Supreme Court
- State Appellate Court
- US Attorneys
- Federal Defenders
- Federal Tax Courts
Participants agreed to develop their A Lists before returning the next day and work on a process for developing the B lists within each state.
Creating a Public Awareness Campaign
In this session Professor Kenney shared ideas for and prior success with obtaining media coverage for the project. Kenney showcased published articles in Minnesota Women Lawyers, Minnesota Lawyer and a piece aired on Minnesota Public Radio. Kenney walked through some elements of a suggested communication plan included in participant binders and encouraged participants to use the stories already published, the case statement for the project and talking points on the project to write their own pieces that might be pitched to:
- Local Newspapers – op eds and letters to the editor, as well as news stories
- Radio stations – talk shows
- Local television – talk shows
- Legal news outlets - State level “Lawyer” papers, magazines or newsletters
- Bar organizations publications and newsletters
- Political Party publications
- Law School newsletters and alumni communications
- Chamber of Commerce and Labor organizations
- Internet Websites and Blogs
- Interest and advocacy groups newsletters or magazines
Mary Vasaly, Maslon, Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, also discussed opportunities for garnering project support from other organizations and reviewed the “Creating an Outreach Campaign” planning document included in Summit materials. She shared a model resolution that can be used by organizations to endorse the project and a calling script for outreach to other organizations.
 As part of this session, participants spent some time talking about framing the issue. Sally Kenney shared her thoughts about the pitfalls associated with using a “difference” argument (women are different that’s why we need more of them) as opposed to an equal representation argument (we already require courts to be geographically diverse, what about other forms of diversity, such as gender, that are equally important; in order to have legitimacy the bench needs to look like the citizens it is serving).
Next Steps
Mary Vasaly facilitated a wrap up session. After identifying a long list of possible next steps, the group prioritized the following short term actions:
- Contacting Senators
- Developing a list of qualified candidates
- Publicizing and raising awareness of the project – one written piece by each participant
- Contacting presidential transition team
- Diversifying supporters and committee (ethnicity and gender)
Other possible actions the group identified include:
- Developing a web site
- Developing a template for a judicial “candidate” training program
- Broadening outreach
- Forming state level committees
- Articulating an elementary message
- Q & A
- Communication across circuit
- Creating an ad for the Bar
- Identifying openings
In closing, the group agreed to a governance structure that includes a steering committee composed of two representatives from each state.
Since the Summit
Participants left the Summit ready to begin or continue efforts in their own state, but with a feeling of connection to the other states and a feeling of support from the project. An All-State Steering Committee comprised of two representatives from each state was constituted to maintain these feelings of connection and support.
The All-State Steering Committee met by phone in November and December for one hour. On these calls, representatives of each state shared their project-related work with the group and information about vacancies and other developments. This process has given all participants a sense of what is happening across the circuit, new ideas for advancing the project, and reminders about priority actions.
State representatives have been active following the Summit. They have taken to heart the priority actions identified at the Summit. Most have been in contact with Senators in their states and have to some degree received a favorable audience. Most have identified and pursued publicity opportunities and made connections with sympathetic or interested groups in their state (Women Lawyers groups, the Bar Association, Law Schools). Most are working through the development of lists for their state.
In addition to conference calls, a listserv (INFINITY@LISTS.UMN.EDU) has been developed for supporters and regular E-Newsletters are sent to the group with updates on the project and opportunities for involvement. Finally, a website is up (www.theinfinityproject.org) that describes the project, links to publicity, provides organizing materials for state level advocates and contacts for each state, and gives supporters an opportunity to register.
| 
