Suggested citation: Angelo Falcón, Opening the Courthouse Doors: The Need for More Hispanic
Judges (New York: Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, 2002)
CONTENTS
Introduction: The Continuing Problem of HispanicAmerican Underrepresentation in the Judiciary
• Hispanics, the U.S. Legal System and American Democracy
• Hispanic Underrepresentation on the Bench
—Projections of an Insurmountable Gap
• Acknowledgments
I. Hispanic-Americans and the Federal Judiciary
• The Numbers
—Hispanic Disparity in Federal Judgeships
• Key Issues
—The Campaign to Appoint the First Hispanic to the U.S.
Supreme Court
—The Bush Record
II. Hispanic-Americans in the State Judiciary
• The Numbers
—Hispanic Disparity in State Judgeships
• Key Issues
—The Case of New York State
III. Conclusion
• The Value of a Diverse Judiciary
• Recommendations for Change
References
Appendix: Data Tables
1
1
3
3
4
6
6
6
9
12
13
14
14
15
17
19
22
22
22
24
27
O
ne of our greatest gifts is the rich diversity we enjoy as Americans,
and it should be reflected in our government and justice system as much as
possible — not at the exclusion of the majority, but by the inclusion of the
minority. … Diversity is not only an issue for minorities. It impacts upon the
entire legal profession. The justice system survives because the public respects
it. … [Judges’] power comes from respect for the rule of law and confidence in
impartial and fair justice. In order to maintain that respect, the justice
system must strive to promote diversity.
—Honorable Joseph H. Rodríguez (2002)
Senior United States District Judge
U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey
W
e feel that an equitable representation of Hispanic and other
minorities in the judiciary would promote greater respect [for] and
understanding of the legal system. In addition, we believe that their presence
would enhance the integrity of the process as well as contributing to the
quality of judicial decisions. Finally, of special importance to all minorities
and indeed to the nation as a whole is the opportunity to provide them with
invaluable role models in an arena where we have been absent for so long.
—Congressional Hispanic Caucus (1992)
T
oday, it is clear that little progress has been made in terms of
increasing the number of Hispanics serving on Federal and state level
judicial benches. Given that Hispanic Americans are now the nation’s largest
minority group, and the ample number of qualified potential nominees, our
courts should include many more Hispanic American judges. … Failing to
achieve equitable representation runs the risk of having our legal system lose
its legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans.
—Congressional Hispanic Caucus (2002)
O
n the significance of the need for an appointment of the first
Hispanic-American to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The rest of the country
would recognize that Hispanic-Americans are equals. If a Hispanic can sit at
that level, you know how many doors of opportunity would open? Respect is
what it all boils down to.”
— Carlos G. Ortiz (quoted in Mauro 2000)
INTRODUCTION:
THE CONTINUING PROBLEM OF
HISPANIC-AMERICAN
UNDERREPRESENTATION IN THE JUDICIARY
T
he representation of Hispanic-Americans in the country’s judiciary
has taken on an urgency in recent years. During the 2000 Presidential
election, for example, the candidates of both major parties
committed themselves to giving priority to the consideration of a
Hispanic-American for the next appointment to the United States
Supreme Court. As we commence a new century, this issue continues to
occupy a major place on the public policy agendas of the HispanicAmerican community throughout the country. The equitable
representation of Hispanics in the federal and state courts is also in the
best interest of all Americans.
This report, Opening the Courthouse Doors, documents the lack of
progress that Hispanic-Americans have made in attaining the judgeships in
the state and federal courts. Based on unpublished data on minority
judges at the federal level and data compiled at the state level by the
American Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education
Fund wanted to look specifically at the progress made in the selection of
Hispanic-American judges in the United States. We recognize that
achieving greater diversity in our federal and state judiciaries through
appointments of a greater number of Hispanic-Americans as judges is not
just a matter of numbers alone. While numbers are important, it is equally
important that the bench include individuals with strong records of
demonstrated interest in, and meaningful connections to the Hispanic
community.
Hispanics, the U.S. Legal System
and American Democracy
A
ccording to the 2000 Census, the Hispanic-American population
in the United States (excluding Puerto Rico and U.S. territories)
stood at 35.3 million, a dramatic increase of 58 percent over the
previous decade. Projections by the Census Bureau of the HispanicAmerican population for 2000 had been significantly lower, 31 million.
The Hispanic-American share of the total U.S. population went from 8.9
percent to 12.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. The Census Bureau
conservatively projects the Hispanic-American population to grow in the
next one hundred years to over 190 million, or 33.3 percent of the total
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
2
U.S. population. (U.S. Census Bureau 2000) By the next century, this
would make the Hispanic-American population more than double the
size of the Black population and almost as large as the non-Hispanic
white population.
Since the Census 2000 results became known, there has been much
discussion in this country over the role of the Hispanic population in this
society. What impact will this major Hispanic presence have on American
society and, conversely, what impact will American society have on
Hispanics? How will American institutions, like government and its courts,
address the issues, needs and concerns of Hispanics?
This report was written with the conviction that today, more than ever,
there is an urgent need to strengthen democracy in the United States. The
role of the Supreme Court in the controversial resolution of the 2000
Presidential election crisis underlined the critical importance of the
judiciary in a representative democracy. It is an important source of
legitimacy for our governing institutions, perhaps more so to a community
like that of Hispanics with so many of its members being new to this
country and so many being disproportionately affected by its legal
system. The problems of both linguistic and cultural misunderstanding
remain, for far too many Hispanics, barriers to justice and fairness.
As is the case with African-Americans, Hispanics find themselves more
involved with the judicial system than other Americans. (Moore and
Pachon 1985: 164-168, and Reynoso 2000) The courts and other
government agencies regulate the large numbers of Hispanics who are
immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Hispanic-Americans in 1999
were crime victims at a rate of 35.3 per 1,000 of those ages 12 and over,
compared to a rate of 32.7 for non-Hispanic whites. (U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics 2000) In terms of property victimization (burglaries, car
theft and theft), Hispanic-Americans were affected at a rate of 232.5
compared to 190.0 for whites. On the other end of the justice system,
there were 310,400 Hispanic-American inmates in 2000 in state and
federal prisons and local jails, representing 16.1 percent of total
prisoners, despite being 11.0 percent of the total adult population. (U.S.
Department of Justice 2001) In ten states, Hispanic men are incarcerated
at rates between 5 and 9 times that of white men; in 8 states, Hispanic
women are incarcerated at rates that are 4 and 7 times greater than
white women; and in 4 states, Hispanic youth under 18 are incarcerated
in adult facilities at rates between 7 and 17 times greater than white
youth. (Human Rights Watch 2002) These developments together bring
more Hispanics in contact with the courts than most other Americans. The
fairness of the judicial system, therefore, has become an important lens
by which Hispanics come to view American society and come to form
attitudes about its fairness.
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
Hispanic Underrepresentation
on the Bench
T
his report uses disparity ratios to indicate the degree of
underrepresentation experienced by Hispanics in state and federal
judgeships. This is calculated as the ratio between the Hispanic
percentage of the population and the Hispanic percent of judgeships.
Complete disparity is indicated by a value of –100.0 percent, and perfect
parity is indicated by a value of 0.0 percent (or beyond parity with a
value higher than 0.0 percent). This statistic is used in this report to
indicate the degree of the gap in Hispanic representation in the judiciary
and not to promote proportionality or “quotas” in the selection of judges
on the basis of population. The use of population is one way to gauge
the distance in terms of representation on the bench and the public the
courts serve.
The availability of a large enough qualified pool of Hispanic-American
lawyers and judges to be selected or promoted as judges is not at issue
here given the current and historic underutilization of Hispanics in judicial
selections throughout the country. Besides the lack of reliable data on
experienced Hispanic attorneys and judges, this potential measure of
underrepresentation is not used in this report because population was
viewed as more useful in providing a measure of public perception of the
lack of Hispanics on the bench, given the courts’ interactions with the
general population.
The percentage of Hispanic-Americans holding federal judgeships was
3.7 percent in 2000, compared to 3.8 percent of those holding state
judgeships. (see Appendix: Data Table on page 27) Dividing these
percentages by the Hispanic percentage of the total U.S. population
(12.5 percent) yields Hispanic judgeship disparity ratios of –70.4 percent
at the federal level and –69.7 percent at the state level. At the federal
level (see Table 5 on page 32), Hispanic representation in judgeships has
grown slightly in disparity over the last decade (going from a disparity
ratio of –70.0 to –70.4 percent), while it has achieved a slight
improvement for state judgeships (from –70.4 to -69.6 percent). What is
remarkable is the high degree of Hispanic underrepresentation at both
the state and federal levels of the judiciary.
Projections of an Insurmountable Gap
In the 1990s, the number of Hispanic-American judges at the state and
federal levels combined grew by 54.7 percent, from 665 in 1990 to
1,029 in 2000. The growth in Hispanic state judgeships was higher, 55.0
percent, than federal judgeships, 47.6 percent. However, when taking
3
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
4
into consideration past and current underrepresentation, and comparing
it with the dramatic actual and projected rates of growth of the Hispanic
population, the chance of closing this gap appears insurmountable. This
degree of this growth is misleading given the very small number of
Hispanic judges that constituted its base in the first place.
For example, if these 1990 to 2000 trends continue, by the year 2050
(when the Census conservatively projects the Hispanic-American
population to reach 24.3 percent of the total population), the number of
Hispanic-American judges would have grown to 4.7 percent in the
federal courts and 5.3 percent in the state courts. (See Chart 1 on the
next page) Over this time period, this would constitute a widening gulf
between Hispanic representation in the population and as judges.
We, therefore, conclude that Hispanic-American underrepresentation in
the state and federal judiciaries of the United States is and will continue
to be a serious problem for our society. Unless, that is, current policies
and practices focusing on the diversity of the bench are urgently and
critically reexamined. This report aims at promoting a public awareness
that will lead to these needed changes.
Acknowledgements
A
ngelo Falcón, Senior Policy Executive of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund (PRLDEF) and Director of the PRLDEF Institute for Puerto Rican
Policy, wrote this report. Minerva Delgado, M.P.P., Special Projects Coordinator
of the PRLDEF Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, conducted the initial bibliographical
research. Special thanks for their feedback go to my colleagues at PRLDEF: Juan A.
Figueroa, President and General Counsel; Vivian Todini, Media Consultant; and Foster
Maer, Director of Litigation. Invaluable outside reviews were provided by Federal Circuit
Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor; and attorneys Mari Carmen Aponte, Juan Cartagena and
William Ho -Gonzalez, to whom we are eternally grateful for assuring that this report was
on point.
The impetus for this report came from Carlos G. Ortiz, Chair of the PRLDEF Board of
Directors, who also currently serves as General Counsel of Goya Foods, Inc. and was a
past President of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA). He is responsible for the
collection of much of the data used in this report, specifically those on the federal
judiciary. Carlos’ lifelong mission and tireless campaigns for the appointment of the first
Hispanic justice to the United States Supreme Court and his general advocacy for more
Hispanic judges, at all times stressing the need for the courts and its judges to be
connected in concrete ways to the Hispanic community, served as an inspiration to all of
us involved in the development of this report.
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
5
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
I. HISPANIC-AMERICANS
AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
6
Please note that federal judgeships from Puerto Rico are excluded from
this report because all the members of the judiciary in this jurisdiction are
Hispanic and including them would unfairly skew the results of this
analysis. (American Bar Association 2001: 219-243) This report also uses
as its base the number of full-time Article III authorized judges and
excludes those who has assumed senior status since they generally are
not full-time and they generally function under reduced workloads.
As referred to above, the federal judges discussed in this report are the
so-called “Article III” judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, Court of Appeals
and Federal District Courts. These positions are filled by Presidential
appointment with Senate confirmation. While the positions of U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge and various specialized federal
courts are important (and Hispanics also suffer from underrepresentation
in these posts), these positions are outside the scope of this study.
The Numbers
O
f the 835 authorized full-time active federal Article III judgeships
in 2000, Hispanic-Americans held only 31 of these life-tenured
posts, or a mere 3.7 percent of the total, compared to 12.5
percent of the U.S. population being Hispanic. (see Table 1 on page 28)
Three-fourths of the Hispanic-American federal judges were in federal
district trial courts, and the remainder in circuit courts of appeal. The
federal courts in Texas and California alone account for half of the
Hispanic-American federal judges in the country. In addition, the 31
Hispanic federal judges are concentrated in only 13 states and the District
of Columbia. In short, 37 states and 7 of the 13 circuits (which consist of
the 11 circuits, the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit)
have no Hispanic-American federal judges at all.
Hispanic Disparity in Federal Judgeships
What is also striking from the data is that none of the top 10 states with
the highest concentrations of Hispanics come close to achieving parity in
their percentage of Hispanic Americans as federal judges. (see Chart 2 on
the next page and Table 5 on page 32) These states are New Mexico
(Disparity Ratio = -66.0 percent), California (-71.6 percent), Texas (-47.0
percent), Arizona (-47.2 percent), Nevada (-100.0 percent), Colorado
(-41.5 percent), Florida (-72.9 percent), New York (-81.1 percent), New
Jersey (-60.4 percent) and Illinois (-52.3 percent).
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
Texas has the distinction of being the state with both the highest number
and percentage of Hispanic-American federal judges in the country (10,
comprising 16.9 percent of total federal judges in the state). (see Chart 3
on the next page) Following Texas, arguably the state with the greatest
Hispanic political influence, those states with at least 10 percent of their
federal judges being Hispanic-American are (ranked according to percentage): New Mexico 14.3 percent (1 Hispanic-American federal judge),
Kansas 14.3 percent (1), Arizona 13.3 percent (2), and Colorado 10.0
percent (1). In California, which has the second highest number of
Hispanic-American federal judges (5), these judges make up only 7.2
percent of the total. Considering that California is the state with the
largest Hispanic population (close to 11 million or 32.4 percent of its
population), it certainly has much room for improvement in addressing
the severe underrepresentation of Hispanics among its federal judges.
Calculating a Hispanic-American Federal Judges Disparity Index (HispanicAmerican percent of federal judges divided by Hispanic-American
percent of the total population, subtracting 1), we find that parity (0.0
percent and above) for Hispanic-Americans in the federal judiciary has
been achieved (and exceeded) in only two states: Indiana (Disparity
Ratio = +118.0 percent) and Kansas (+104.0 percent). (see Table 5 on
page 32) These are followed by the following four states (ranked in order
of smallest Disparity Ratios): Connecticut (-11.4 percent), Pennsylvania
(-32.3 percent), Colorado (-41.5 percent) and Texas (-47.0).
7
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
8
Looking at 1990-2000 trends in the appointments of Hispanic-Americans
to the federal judiciary, there has been a dramatic growth of 34.8
percent, a rise from 23 to 31 Hispanic federal judges. (see Chart 4 on the
next page and Table 3 on page 30) When analyzed by state, the picture
is much more mixed. Two states doubled their number of Hispanic
federal judges in this period: Arizona and Florida, both going from having
1 to 2 Hispanic-American federal judges. This was followed by a
percentage increase in Texas of 25.0 percent (from 8 to 10).
As already mentioned, in 2000 there were 37 states, as well as 7 federal
circuits, with no Hispanic-American federal judges. The 4th. 6th, 7th, 8th,
11th, District of Columbia and Federal Circuit courts of appeal have no
Hispanic-American judges. However, the following six jurisdictions went
from having no Hispanic-American federal judges to having at least one
during this period: Colorado (from 0 to 1), District of Columbia (0 to 1),
Illinois (0 to 2), Kansas (0 to 1), New York (0 to 2) and Pennsylvania (0 to
1). On the other hand, the following three states had a decrease during
this period in the number of Hispanic-American federal judges: Michigan
(1 to 0), Missouri (1 to 0), and New Mexico (2 to 1). Most states, 36, had
no change at all, with most of these having no Hispanic-American federal
judges at all during this period.
The appointment of Hispanic-American federal judges has, however,
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
consistently increased since 1969, regardless of which political party was
in the White House. (see Chart 5 on the next page) Among Republican
Presidents, Hispanics went from being merely 0.9 percent of Nixon
appointments in 1969-74, to 4.2 percent of Bush appointments in 198992. (Alliance for Justice 2001) Among Democrats, Hispanic appointments
went from 6.2 percent under Carter in 1977-80 to 6.3 percent under
Clinton in 1993-2000. While, to date, Democratic Presidents have
consistently made higher percentage of Hispanic-American judicial
appointments than Republicans, the rate of percentage point growth
over time under Republican Presidents in this period has been more
dramatic (from 0.9 to 4.2 percent), while the Democratic record has
been virtually stagnant (6.2 to 6.3 percent) at this level.
Key Issues
A
lthough the first Hispanic-American on the Article III federal bench
was appointed more than forty years ago, the problem of
extreme underrepresentation at this level has been persistent.
Reynaldo G. Garza of Texas became the first Hispanic-American federal
judge when he was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas in 1961, and the first Hispanic-American on a U.S. Court
of Appeals in 1979. (Fisch 1996) However, today, although HispanicAmericans make up 13 percent of the country’s population, they are less
than 4 percent of full-time federal judges.
9
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
10
Federal judges are appointed for life. They decide the most important
issues of our times -- issues of life and death, of property rights as well as
those profoundly affecting every aspect of the daily life of our nation.
They also serve as final arbiters of disputes between the branches of the
federal government. The importance of Hispanic-American representation
in the federal judiciary, especially the courts of appeals, not only stems
from the critical role this level of the court system plays, but also its
increasing function as a pipeline to becoming a Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court. As Tribe (2001: 9) put it, “… the circuit courts have
increasingly served as a kind of ‘farm team’ for Supreme Court
nominations. In fact, 7 of the 9 sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices had
previously served, for varying lengths of time, on these courts.
Other important factors in increasing the representation of qualified
Hispanic-Americans on the bench are the competing factors of timeliness,
but thoroughness as well. The record shows that delays in the
confirmation process have been more pronounced for minority
candidates. A study of the 105th Congress found that Senate review of
federal judicial nominations for white nominees took an average of 186
days (167 days for white men), compared to 246 for minority
candidates. (Citizens for Independent Courts 2000: 68 and 70) An
updated review by USA Today discovered, “On average, its takes about
eight months for minorities and women to get through the confirmation
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
process; the average for white men is five months … .” (Biskupic 2000).
In recent years, several qualified Hispanic nominees to the federal bench
were subject to lengthy delays in having their nominations considered. In
some instances, these nominations – including nominations of
distinguished, sitting Hispanic-American district judges for promotion to
the courts of appeals – languished in committee for as long as 4 years
before finally being allowed to come to a vote. In other instances,
nominations of extremely well qualified Hispanic candidates for
judgeships were not considered at all.
The high-profile cases of the successful Richard Paez and Sonia
Sotomayor nominations, and the many unsuccessful cases of nominees
defeated without a vote such as those of Jorge C. Rangel and Enrique
Moreno, illustrate this problem. Paez, for example, who in 1994 had
become the first Mexican-American on Los Angeles’ federal district court,
had his nomination by President Clinton to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals languish in the Senate for a record four years. (Biskupic 2000).
Jorge Rangel, one of two nominees for the 5th Circuit, who did not even
get a committee hearing, noted in a letter to President Bill Clinton: “Our
judicial system depends on men and women of good will who agree to
serve when asked to do so, But public service asks too much when those
of us who answer the call are subjected to a confirmation process
dominated by interminable delays and in action.” (Biskupic 2000)
Moreover, legitimate concerns about such extensive delays have led
some well-qualified Hispanic potential judges to decline consideration
for nomination.
On the other hand, we equally acknowledge the need for all judicial
nominees – including Hispanic nominees – to undergo careful
background investigation and scrutiny during the nomination and
confirmation processes. This is necessary to assess the integrity, legal
qualifications and judicial temperament of each nominee, as well as their
record of involvement in and concern for the needs of the Hispanic
community. While delays should be no longer than necessary, we also
believe that evaluations should be done as thoroughly as possible
without sacrificing equally important and necessary adequate periods of
review. It, therefore, behooves nominating officials to make their
nominations as early in their terms of office as possible.
The Campaign to Appoint
11
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
the First Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court
12
T
he campaign to have a Hispanic-American appointed to the U.S.
Supreme Court has been waged in earnest over the last decade or
so. Calling it “the single most unifying issue in the history of the
Hispanic community,” Carlos Ortiz, Chair of the Board of Directors of the
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), has been at the
forefront of this campaign. (Mauro 2000) Among other things, Ortiz
points to major meetings of Hispanic leaders with President George Bush
in 1992, Vice President Al Gore in 1994 and President Bill Clinton in 1993
and 1999 to discuss this issue. In the 2000 presidential campaign, the
candidates of the two major political parties both pledged to seriously
consider a Hispanic-American nomination for the next vacancy on the
high court.
Ortiz argues that there have been a number of misconceptions about
having this goal realized, none of which have been accurate for some
time:
1. The misperception that “the Hispanic community, with its MexicanAmerican, Puerto Rican and Cuban-American components among
others, is too fractured to unite behind a single Hispanic candidate.”
2. The notion “that there is no single, obvious choice among potential
Hispanic nominees. … There’s a perception that there’s no Hispanic
Thurgood Marshall.”
3. “Another reason cited in the past … was the small number of
Hispanic judges with experience.”
In response, groups like the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) had
developed “short lists” in the past of potential Hispanic-American
nominees. Currently, the organization has instead decided to release a
more inclusive bipartisan “long list” of 60 Hispanics to the White House to
further promote Hispanic unity on nominations to the high court. The
Hispanics on this “long list” are merely meant to be illustrative of the
substantial pool of Hispanic legal talent that exists throughout the
country. This list makes it abundantly clear that it can no longer be
asserted in good faith that the pool of potential Hispanic nominees to
the United States Supreme Court is too small or inadequate. At both the
state and federal levels, organizations such as the HNBA and other state
and local Hispanic bar associations have made the case that,
notwithstanding the extreme historical underutilization of Hispanic attorneys as judges, there are more than sufficient numbers of qualified
Hispanic attorneys and judges in absolute terms to achieve much greater
parity than is currently the case.
The Bush Record
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
P
resident George W. Bush’s track record of Hispanic-American
appointments in all areas, including the judiciary, is being closely
mintoered by organizations such as the National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda and the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials. While his initial Presidential appointments of
Hispanic-Americans to non-judicial posts appear positive, his track record
on judicial appointments as Governor of Texas is less reassuring. While the
state of Texas has the highest number of Hispanics in both federal and
state judgeships, the vast majority of these pre-dated Bush’s
governorship. (Herman and McCarthy 1998, Hight and Herman 2000,
Hoppe 2000, and Mittelstadt 2000). In addition, a large number of
Hispanic state judges in Texas occupy lower -level posts of justice of the
peace, masters, referees and administrative judgeships. (see American
Bar Association 2001: 244-272)
Nonetheless, the dramatic growth of the Hispanic population (and, of
importance to politicians, its share of voters) has put the issue of the
need to dramatically improve Hispanic-American representation on the
federal courts squarely on the agenda of our nation’s political leaders
and political parties.
13
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
II. HISPANIC-AMERICANS
IN THE STATE JUDICIARY
14
Please note that the number of state court judgeships used in this report
are based on the most complete public sources available. The numbers
of state judicial positions may include, depending on the state, a number
of local judicial posts. These variations in the statistics have a variety of
causes, including the different structures of court systems in different
states, vacant positions and the varying ways that quasi-judicial positions
are defined as being either judicial or administrative. Despite these
limitations, these sources were used in order to assure consistency over
the 10 year period covered by this study.
The Numbers
O
f approximately 26,196 judges in state courts, HispanicAmericans held only 998 of these posts, or a mere 3.8 percent
of the total, a major case of underrepresentation compared to
the 12.5 percent of the U.S. population that is Hispanic. (see Table 2 on
page 29) The overwhelming number of Hispanic-American state judges
were in the lower level trial courts (96.3 percent), with only 3.1 percent
in the intermediate appellate courts and 0.6 percent in the courts of last
resort. There are 21 states with no Hispanic-American state judges.
Compared to the federal judiciary, Texas and California have an even
greater share of Hispanic-American state court judges, together
accounting for 59.6 percent of the total. Most Hispanic-American state
judges (91.7 percent) were concentrated in only eight states: Texas (402
Hispanic-American state judges), California (193), New Mexico (104),
Arizona (61), New York (56), Florida (40), New Jersey (30), and Colorado
(29). In a state like Texas, it is important to note that many of the Hispanic
state judges are lower level administrative judges, justices of the peace,
masters and referees. (see American Bar Association 2000: 244-272)
While Texas has the greatest number of Hispanic-American state judges
(402), being home to 40.3 percent of all Hispanic-American state judges
in the country, it does not have the highest percentage of its judges
being Hispanic-American. (see Chart 6 on the next page) The jurisdictions
with at least 5 percent of their state judges being Hispanic-American are,
in rank order: New Mexico (37.3 percent), Arizona (18.5 percent), Texas
(13.8 percent), California (12.2 percent), District of Columbia (8.8
percent), Colorado (6.7 percent), and New Jersey (6.3 percent). Despite
having seemingly large numbers of Hispanic-American state judges, Texas
and California rank third and fourth, respectively, in the percentage of
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
total state judges these numbers represent, although these are the two
states with the largest Hispanic populations in the country.
15
Hispanic Disparity in State Judgeships
W
e have calculated what we call a Hispanic-American State
Judges Disparity Ratio by dividing the Hispanic-American per centage of state judges by the Hispanic-American percentage
of the total population and subtracting 1. A result of this Index of -100.0
percent means total disparity, while one of 0.0 percent or above means
that state has achieved or exceeded parity.
Of the top 10 states with the highest concentrations of Hispanics, only 2
come close to approaching parity in their percentages of Hispanic state
judges (New Mexico’s Disparity Ratio is -11.4 percent, and Arizona’s is
–26.6 percent). (see Chart 7 on the next page and Table 5 on page 32)
The Disparity Ratios for the other eight states are: New Jersey (-52.4
percent), Texas (-56.8 percent), Colorado (-61.0 percent), California
(-62.3 percent), Florida (-70.2 percent), Illinois (-85.3 percent). Nevada
(-85.1 percent), and New York (-89.4 percent).
In terms of all 50 states and jurisdictions, only the District of Columbia has
achieved (actually exceeded) parity (Disparity Ratio = +112.3 percent).
D.C. was followed by the following five states (ranked in order smallest
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
16
Disparity Ratios): New Mexico (-11.4 percent), Arizona (-26.6 percent),
Minnesota (-50.5 percent), New Jersey (-52.4 percent), and Texas (-56.8
percent).
Looking at 1990-2000 trends in the appointment or election of HispanicAmericans to the state judiciary, there was a dramatic growth of 55.0
percent, a rise from 644 to 998 Hispanic-American state judges. (see
Chart 8 on the next page and Table 4 on page 31) When analyzed by
state, as with federal judgeships, the picture is more mixed. Ten states/
jurisdictions doubled or more than doubled their number of HispanicAmerican state judges in this period (in order of rate of growth): Missouri
(from 1 to 4 Hispanic-American state judges), Oregon (1 to 4), New
Jersey (13 to 30), California (89 to 193), New York (26 to 56), District of
Columbia (3 to 6), Maryland (1 to 2), Minnesota (2 to 4), Ohio (2 to 4),
and Utah (1 to 2).
In 2000, there were 21 states with no Hispanic-American state court
judges. However, the following six states went from having no HispanicAmerican state judges to having one or more during this period:
Massachusetts (from 0 to 7 Hispanic-American state judges), Connecticut
(0 to 5), Wisconsin (0 to 3), Georgia (0 to 1), Idaho (0 to 1), and
Nebraska (0 to 1).
On the other hand, the following six states had a decrease during this
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
period in the number of Hispanic-American state judges: Alabama (1 to 0
Hispanic-American state judges). Hawaii (1 to 0), Louisiana (4 to 0),
Michigan (3 to 2), Nevada (7 to 4), and Virginia (1 to 0). A large number
of states, 20, had no change at all, with most of these having no HispanicAmerican state judges at all during this period.
Key Issues
I
n a recent study, University of Maryland School of Law Professor
Sherrilyn Ifill observed, “Despite dramatic gains in the legislative arena in
the past 20 years, racial diversity on state courts remains a muchlauded but seemingly elusive goal.” (Ifill 1997: 96) While that study’s
focus was the African-American community, its findings are equally
relevant to Hispanic-Americans. Ifill (1997: 100) argues for the need to
focus on state courts for the “simply pragmatic” reason that they are
“responsible for resolving most disputes – civil or criminal.”
Ifill points out that the “tradition of electing state courts’ judges reflects a
tradition of state judges exercising representative functions.” She also
notes that the “recent movement of power from national to state
government” that “has made state government an increasingly important
17
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
18
locus of political power.” “State judges,” she goes on to note, “are
enjoying increased power as the United States Supreme Court limits
opportunities for federal authorities to review or mandate state actions.”
State judgeships are distinct from the federal judiciary in a number of
important ways. First, while federal judgeships are for life, most state
judgeships are for limited terms. Second, while federal judges are all
appointed, state judges can be selected either through appointment or
elections or a combination of both. Third, the state courts often serve as
a “feeder system” for appointments to the federal courts.
At the state level, there is a debate over whether elective or appointive
(i.e., “merit”) systems generate a more racially diverse judiciary. Currently,
experience by Hispanic organizations advocating greater Hispanic
representation in state judgeships suggests that elective systems result in
greater Hispanic representation. (Kanellos 1994: 234-235)
The issue of Hispanic underrepresentation among state judges is a
national problem. Whether it is Florida (Hill 2001), California (Dolan and
Rosenweig 2001), Utah (Martinez 2001), Maryland (Roig-Franzia 2002),
Florida (Miller 2001) or New York (Gonzalez 2002), to give but a few
examples, the lack of Hispanic-Americans on the bench in the state
courts, the problem of secretive, highly political and inaccessible judicial
selection processes, and related issues are recurring ones in what are
widely acknowledged to be the “workhorses” of the American legal
system.
As the state with the largest Hispanic population and yet having such a
high Disparity Ratio (-62.3 percent), California deserves special scrutiny.
While it appears that Governor Gray Davis is moving in the right direction
with a series of recent Hispanic appointments to the state’s bench,
clearly much more needs to be done in this regard by his Administration.
This is the case as well for the large majority of the top 10 states with the
largest percentages of Hispanic population.
In a recent national opinion survey on state courts, Hispanics were
surprisingly found to be more positive about this institution than other
racial-ethnic groups. (National Center for State Courts 1999). However,
this same study found that a majority (53 percent) of Hispanic-Americans
“believe the courts are out of touch with their communities.” (pp. 4 and
40) It also found that close to half (47 percent) of all respondents felt
that Hispanics receive the “worst treatment” from the courts. (p. 37). As
the federal government’s devolution of responsibilities to the states
continues and the role of the state courts increases, public opinion on
them may change and become even more critical, particularly among
Hispanic-Americans.
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
The Case of New York State
W
hile it is beyond the scope of the this report to provide a
detailed state-by-state analysis of these problems, a review of
the situation in New York, where the Puerto Rican Legal and
Education Fund is located, might provide a useful example. In a letter to
Congressman Jose Serrano of the Bronx, Carlos Ortiz, as President-elect
of the Hispanic National Bar Association, pointed out as recently as 1992
that, “New York State is the worst in the nation relative to Hispanic
representation on the Federal bench and/or state bench.” (Ortiz 1992)
Almost ten years later, Ortiz (2001), in a letter to the editor of the New
York Law Journal, pointed out that Governor Pataki “may possibly have
one of the worst records for promoting diversity on the courts of any
governor,” calling the Governor’s failure to name a single Hispanic to the
state’s Appellate Division “indefensible.” As this report documents, there
has been some progress in those ten years overall, but in 2000 New York
ranked only 24th among the states in terms of Hispanic parity in state
judgeships. (see Table 5 on page 32) Among the top 10 states with the
largest Hispanic concentrations, New York still has one of the worst track
records of appointing Hispanics to state judgeships.
In a series of columns, New York Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez
(2000a-e, 2001; also see Fenner 2000) has documented the problem of
Hispanic-American judicial underrepresentation in New York State. As he
recently observed, “Not a single Latino judge has served in the Appellate
Division since 1994, when John Carro retired. And Carro was only the
Second Hispanic in the court’s history.” (Gonzalez 2001) This problem of
the lack of diversity of New York State court judgeships has been
systematically analyzed since the late 1980s when then Chief State Judge
Sol Wachtler established the New York State Judicial Commission on
Minorities in 1988. (New York County Lawyers’ Association 2002, and
Woods 2002; for a critique of this report, see Duban 1997) Their 1991
report found that of a total of 1,126 higher-level state judges, only 19
(1.7 percent of the total) were Hispanic-Americans, and in its 1997 FiveYear Report it found that the number of Hispanic state judges had almost
doubled.
Gonzalez (2000a) believed the problem arose in part from the misuse of
regulations that circumvent elections to select state judges and allow
abuse of a provision of the State Constitution that allows the
appointment of acting state Supreme Court judges. (For a broader
discussion on the judicial selection process in New York see Bierman
1996) He found that, among elected state judges, 35 percent were from
minority groups, while among the appointed judges, only 10 percent
were minority. Gonzalez (2000b) quotes Juan Figueroa, President and
19
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
20
General Counsel of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund,
on this practice: “This is appalling. It’s illegal and it’s a travesty to have
this kind of racial and ethnic divide in our judiciary.”
Most recently, Gonzalez (2002) found that even when Hispanics do get
elected in New York to a state judgeship, their independence is
compromised by the inappropriate influence of political parties in the
operation of the courts. (also see Haberman 2001) He focused on the
case of Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres, whose political
independence may cost her support in her reelection bid because she
refused to participate in the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s patronage
system within the courts. Assemblyman Vito Lopez, Democrat from
Brooklyn, who is of European heritage but has a major role in the
nomination of Hispanics to state judgeships, openly spoke about Judge
Lopez Torres’ defiance of his directives and failure to support his
reelection, and his intention at the time to oppose her renomination. “We
made her a judge,” Assemblyman Lopez told Gonzalez, “You respect the
people who helped you get there.” Of the 28 Civil Courts judges in
Brooklyn, only 2 are Hispanic-American (7.1 percent). The 2000 Census
counted 487,878 Hispanic residents of Brooklyn, making up 19.8 percent
of the borough’s population.
With New York Governor George Pataki, a Republican, facing reelection
this year, his poor record of appointing Hispanic-Americans to the state
bench is an issue he will have to address. This is particularly the case
given his recent efforts to court the state’s large Hispanic vote (see Dicker
and Seifman 2002, Hicks 2002 and Humbert 2002). Governor Pataki’s
March 14, 2002 appointment of a single Hispanic judge to the Appellate
Division and one to the lower Court of Claims is widely viewed within the
Hispanic community as simply an election year move in light of his
previous failure to appoint a Hispanic in his last seven years in office to
any of the 28 vacancies he had to fill in the Appellate Division. As Juan
Figueroa of PRLDEF explained in reaction to the new Pataki appointees,
“We’re glad Pataki appointed these two. But let’s hope we don’t have to
wait another four years for two more.” (Gonzalez 2002b)
On March 15, 2002, a special meeting of the Franklin H. Williams Judicial
Commission on Minorities was held with Governor Pataki to discuss
Hispanic concerns and his announcement the previous day of the
appointment of two Hispanics to state judgeships. At this meeting, the
Governor admitted that he had not done well in terms of Hispanic
judicial appointments and committed himself to do better.
Participants at the Williams Commission meeting with Governor Pataki
noted that there would be a vacancy shortly in the Appellate Division—
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
Second Judicial Department, which includes Kings (Brooklyn), Queens,
Richmond (Staten Island), Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess,
Orange and Rockland counties. Together, these counties account for
more than half (51.7 percent) of the state’s population and have a large
Hispanic population of over 1.6 million, making up 16.5 percent of the
Second Judicial Department’s population.
Yet, with a total of 21 justices, this department has never had a Hispanic
serve in this capacity. Those present at the Williams Commission meeting
with Governor Pataki agreed that the appointment of a HispanicAmerican in this department would be a historic move by the Governor.
By doing so, Governor Pataki would go a long way to overcoming
cynicism about the political motives behind his recent Hispanic
appointment to the Appellate Division and demonstrate his serious and
long-term commitment to be responsive to the Hispanic community. Such
an appointment would set a excellent example for the rest of the nation,
on a par with former New York Governor Mario Cuomo’s appointment of
the first Hispanic to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
Beyond the Governor, the nomination and appointment of state court
judges is a responsibility shared by others as well. These include the court
system itself, the political parties, mayors and the local bar associations,
who all play such an important role in the selection of state judges at the
state and local levels. As we see in New York, despite the large and
growing Hispanic population, and its increasing political clout, the
obstacles to achieving fair representation in state judgeships remain
formidable. In this sense, New York’s response to this issue of HispanicAmerican underrepresentation among its state judges can be a
bellwether for the rest of the country and warrants close examination.
21
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
22
T
III. Conclusion
he important role of the courts in the everyday lives of all Americans,
including an increasingly large percentage of Hispanic-Americans,
raises questions about the absence of significant numbers from this
community among the judges who lead this branch of government. This is
especially true in the current period where the problem of terrorism has
forced our legal system to grapple with trade offs that disproportionately
affect immigrants and people of color. These include the rights of people
unlawfully detained and the defunding of critically important programs.
The Value of a Diverse Judiciary
A
s this report demonstrates, there is a serious and potentially
worsening problem of Hispanic underrepresentation in the state
and federal judiciaries that requires urgent attention by
policymakers. This is a problem that can seriously undermine the role of
the courts in the Hispanic community and among the public at large.
Greater Hispanic and minority representation in the judiciary would
positively contribute to the development of the law and enhance the
administration of justice in the following ways:
1. Promote respect for the law. The fact that the Judiciary is currently
perceived by many as being biased against minorities should be of
serious concern to us all since that perception breeds disrespect,
indifference and contempt for law and order.
2. Enhance the public’s confidence in the legitimacy of the legal system
and the role of our nation’s courts.
3. Enhance the quality of judicial decisions by reducing the risks that
those decisions may be tainted by prejudice, indifference or inequity.
4. Provide invaluable role models for Hispanic youth of tomorrow.
T
Recommendations for Change
he Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund presents the
following set of recommendations to begin to seriously address this
persistent problem of Hispanic underrepresentation in state and
federal judgeships throughout the United States. We urge the chief
executives, whether the President of the United States, Governors and
Senators of the fifty states, or the hundreds of mayors, party leaders and
others involved in judicial selection at the local level to take the following
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
actions:
1. Make the nominations and appointments of Hispanic Americans to
state and federal court judgeships a high priority from the leaders
filtering down throughout their administrations, particularly in those
states with significant Hispanic populations.
2. Appoint knowledgeable and experienced Hispanics as key advisors in
cabinet-level and policymaking positions and to judicial evaluation
committees.
3. Nominate qualified Hispanic candidates who have also had a
demonstrated interest and a meaningful involvement in the work and
activities of the Hispanic community. We will not rubber-stamp
nominees who are merely identified as Hispanic. The life experiences
of such candidates must clearly demonstrate that they have had a
meaningful interest in the needs and concerns of the Hispanic
community.
4. Nominate Hispanic nominees as early as possible in their respective
terms of office to ensure that they will have enough time for adequate
periods of review and avoid expirations of their nominations.
5. Support the appointment of a unifying, non-controversial, and
confirmable nominee to be the first Hispanic-American to serve on
the United States Supreme Court.
T
he title of this report, Opening the Courthouse Doors, captures our
belief that our nation’s future needs to be open to change. The
question is whether the will exists among our country’s leaders to
make the necessary changes to assure that the large and growing
Hispanic community is fairly represented in the judiciary. The nation’s
Hispanic leadership and voters must monitor more closely those elected
officials who ignore our people when they appoint judges and other
public officials.
23
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
REFERENCES
24
Alliance for Justice (2001). 14th Annual Report on the State of the Judiciary
2000: The Legacy of the Clinton Administration and the Future Under George
W. Bush (Washington, DC: Author, March).
American Bar Association (2000). Miles to Go 2000: Progress of Minorities in the
Legal Profession (Chicago: ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in
the Profession).
American Bar Association (2001). Directory of Minority Judges of the United
States, Third Edition (Chicago: ABA Judicial Division Task Force on Minorities
in the Judiciary).
Bennack, Jr., Frank (1999). How the Public Views the State Courts: A 1999
National Survey (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, May 14).
Bierman, Luke (1997). “Legal Development: Preserving Power in Picking Judges –
Merit Selection for the New York Court of Appeals,” 60 Alb. L. Rev. 339.
Biskupic, Joan (2000). “Minorities Face Hurdles in Judgeship Quest,” USA Today
(August 25).
Citizens for Independent Courts (2000). Uncertain Justice: Politics and America’s
Courts – The Reports of the Task Forces of the Citizens for Independent
Courts (New York: The Century Foundation).
Congressional Hispanic Caucus (1992). Letter to Carlos G. Ortiz, Then PresidentElect, Hispanic National Bar Association (May 15).
__________ (2002). Letter to Carlos G. Ortiz, Chairman of the Board, Puerto
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (March 14).
Cooper, Desiree (2001). “Champion of Legal Diversity to Tell His Tale,” Detroit
Free-Press (October 4).
Dicker, Fredric U., and David Seifman (2002). “Hey, I’m Just Like Dr. King, Gov
Tells Black Audience,” Daily News (January 23).
Dolan, Maura, and David Rosenweig (2001). “High Court Nominee Vows to
Emphasize Consensus; Profile: Carlos Moreno’s Confirmation Would Make
Him the Lone Democrat on State High Court,” Los Angeles Times (September
27).
Duban, Jeffrey M. (1997). “Banishing Bias: The Second Circuit’s Draft Report on
Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts,” New York State Bar Journal,
Vol. 69, No. 8 (December).
Fenner, Austin (2000). “Push to Diversify Queens Court Ranks,” Daily News
(October 17).
Fisch, Louise Ann (1996), All Rise: Reynaldo G. Garza, the First Mexican American
Federal Judge (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press)
Fund for Modern Courts (1985). The Success of Women and Minorities in
Achieving Judicial Office: The Selection Process (New York: Author).
Goldberg, Deborah (1998). “Lott’s Hispanic Quota,” The Nation (October 5).
Gonzalez, Juan (2000a). “City’s Jerry-built Justice: Acting Judges Sidesteps Real
Reform,” Daily News (January 12).
__________ (2000b). “A Supreme Example of Ethnic Bias,” Daily News (January
14),
__________ (2000c). “Pols Rule Courtrooms: Acting Judges Owe Their Jobs to
Pataki, Rudy,” Daily News (January 18).
__________ (2000d). “To Judge, the Law’s All in the Family,” Daily News
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
(January 28).
__________ (2000e), “Push on to Diversify Queens Court Ranks,” Daily News
(October 17).
__________ (2001). “Pataki Should Name Hispanic Judges,” Daily News (March
29).
__________ (2002a). “Running? He’ll Be Judge of That,” Daily News (February
27).
__________ (2002b). “2 Latinos Rise on State Bench,” Daily News (March 14).
Haberman, Maggie (2001). “Patronage Judges Face Disciplinary Hearings,” New
York Post (December 4).
Herman. Ken and Osler McCarthy (1998). “Gonzalez Named to Supreme Court:
Bush Appoints His Secretary of State to Replace Retiring Justice,” Austin
American-Statesman (November 13).
Hicks, Jonathan (2002). “Pataki Defends Record Before Black and Hispanic
Legislators,” New York Times (February 18).
Hight, Bruce and Ken Herman (2000), “Bush Court Appointees Are Called
Pragmatists,” Austin American-Statesman (October 16).
Hill, Martha (2001). “Judicial Appointments Ignore Diversity,” Florida News-Press
(October 21).
Hoppe, Christy (2000). “State Judges May Provide Clues on Bush: U.S. High Court
Picks Could Alter Abortion Law,” Dallas Morning News (July 8).
Human Rights Watch (2002). “Race and Incarceration ni the United States,”
Briefing (February 27).
Humbert, Marc (2002). “Dem Rivals, Pataki Woo Black, Hispanic Vote,” Ithaca
Journal (February 18).
Ifill, Sherrilyn A. (1997). “Judging the Judges: Racial Diversity, Impartiality and
Representation on State Trial Courts,” 39 B.C.L.Rev 95 (December).
Kanellos, Nicolás, The Hispanic Almanac: From Columbus to Corporate America
(Detroit: Visible Ink Press).
Martinez, Mike (2001). “Why Doesn’t Utah Have More Hispanic Judges?,”
Deseret News (December 3).
Mauro, Tony (1998). “Corps of Clerks Lacking in Diversity,” USA Today (March
13).
_________ (2000). “An Hispanic Justice At Last?,” National Law Journal
(November 13): 1.
McLaughlin, Abraham (2001). “Profile: Alberto Gonzalez: Bush’s Judge Picker
Could be Picked,” Christian Science Monitor (July 10).
Miller, Susan R. (2001). “Governor’s Big Chance: With New Power from
Legislature, Jeb Bush Has Fewer Reasons for Not Appointing More Women
and Minorities to the Appellate Bench,” Miami Daily Business Review (August
31).
Mittelstadt, Michelle (2000), “Liberal Groups Restudy Tactics: Bush’s Victory May
Force Change in Agendas on Abortion, Guns,” Dallas Morning News
(December 16).
Moore, Joan and Harry Pachon (1985). Hispanics in the United States
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
National Center for State Courts (1999). How the Public Views the State Courts:
A 1999 National Survey (Williamsburg, VA: Author, May 14).
New York County Lawyers’ Association (2002). Report of the Task Force to
Increase Diversity in the Legal Profession (New York: Author).
25
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
26
Ortiz, Carlos (1992). Letter to Congressman José E. Serrano (March 19).
__________ (2001). Letter to Kris Fischer, Executive Editor, New York Law
Journal (April 23).
Reynoso, Cruz (2000). “Hispanics and the Criminal Justice System” in Pastora San
Juan Cafferty and David W. Engstrom (eds.), Hispanics in the United States:
An Agenda for the Twenty-First Century (New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers): Chapter 9.
Rodriguez, Joseph (2002). Speech to the Specialty Bar Summit, New Jersey
State Bar Association Law Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey (February 22).
Roig-Franzia, Manuel (2002). “Judgeships Overlook Hispanics, Asians,”
Washington Post (February 14), page T3.
Tribe, Laurence H. (2001). “Should Ideology Matter?: Judicial Nominations
2001” (Washington, DC: Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts,
June 26).
U.S. Census Bureau (1993). We the American Hispanics (Washington, DC: U.S.
Commerce Department, September 1993).
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). “Projections of the Resident Population by Race,
Hispanic Origin, and Nativity: Middle Series, 2075 to 2100” (Washington, DC:
U.S. Commerce Department, January 13, 2000).
U.S. Department of Justice (2001). Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ
185989)(Washington, DC, March 2001).
Woods, John (2002). “New Report Cites Retention as Key Factor in Improving
Diversity,” New York Law Journal (February 25).
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
27
APPENDIX
DATA TABLES
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Table 1 - Hispanic Judges in the Federal Judiciary, 2000
28
(excluding Puerto Rico and other US territories)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total Population
4,447,100
626,932
5,130,632
2,673,400
33,871,648
4,301,261
3,405,565
783,600
572,059
15,982,378
8,186,453
1,211,537
1,293,953
12,419,293
6,080,485
2,926,324
2,688,418
4,041,769
4,468,976
1,274,923
5,296,486
6,349,097
9,938,444
4,919,479
2,844,658
5,595,211
902,195
1,711,263
1,998,257
1,235,786
8,414,350
1,819,046
18,976,457
8,049,313
642,200
11,353,140
3,450,654
3,421,399
12,281,054
1,048,319
4,012,012
754,844
5,689,283
20,851,820
2,233,169
608,827
7,078,515
5,894,121
1,808,344
5,363,675
493,782
Hispanic Population
% Hispanic
Population
75,830
25,852
1,295,617
86,866
10,966,556
735,601
320,323
37,277
44,953
2,682,715
435,227
87,699
101,690
1,530,262
214,536
82,473
188,252
59,939
107,738
9,360
227,916
428,729
323,877
143,382
39,569
118,592
18,081
94,425
393,970
20,489
1,117,191
765,386
2,867,583
378,963
7,786
217,123
179,304
275,314
394,088
90,820
95,076
10,903
123,838
6,669,666
201,559
5,504
329,540
441,509
12,279
192,921
31,669
1.7%
4.1%
25.3%
3.2%
32.4%
17.1%
9.4%
4.8%
7.9%
16.8%
5.3%
7.2%
7.9%
12.3%
3.5%
2.8%
7.0%
1.5%
2.4%
0.7%
4.3%
6.8%
3.3%
2.9%
1.4%
2.1%
2.0%
5.5%
19.7%
1.7%
13.3%
42.1%
15.1%
4.7%
1.2%
1.9%
5.2%
8.0%
3.2%
8.7%
2.4%
1.4%
2.2%
32.0%
9.0%
0.9%
4.7%
7.5%
0.7%
3.6%
6.4%
Federal Circuit
Grand Total
281,421,906
35,305,818
12.5%
Hispanic Federal Court Judges:
F/T Auth Fed
Hispanic % of
Federal
F/T Hispanic
Court
Federal
Circuit Courts
District
Trial
Federal
Judgeships
Judges
of Appeal
Courts
Judges
16
4
15
9
69
10
12
6
27
44
22
3
4
34
13
7
7
13
28
4
12
15
24
9
11
15
4
4
9
4
19
7
70
13
3
24
13
8
46
4
14
4
17
59
7
3
20
14
10
9
5
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
13.3%
0.0%
7.2%
10.0%
8.3%
0.0%
3.7%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
7.7%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
14.3%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12
0
0
0
0.0%
835
8
23
31
3.7%
Sources:
Population figures from the US Bureau of the Census
Total number of full-time, authorized federal judgeships derived from 28 U.S.C. (2000) Sections 41, 44, 48 and 133
Number of Hispanic federal judges from unpublished data compiled by Carlos G. Ortiz
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Table 2 - Hispanic Judges in the State Judiciary, 2000
29
(excluding Puerto Rico and US territories)
Number of Hispanic State Court Judges:
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Grand Total
Total Population
Hispanic
Population
% Hispanic
Population
F/T Auth
Intermediate
State Court
Courts of
Appellate
Judgeships Last Resort
Court
4,447,100
626,932
5,130,632
2,673,400
33,871,648
4,301,261
3,405,565
783,600
572,059
15,982,378
8,186,453
1,211,537
1,293,953
12,419,293
6,080,485
2,926,324
2,688,418
4,041,769
4,468,976
1,274,923
5,296,486
6,349,097
9,938,444
4,919,479
2,844,658
5,595,211
902,195
1,711,263
1,998,257
1,235,786
8,414,350
1,819,046
18,976,457
8,049,313
642,200
11,353,140
3,450,654
3,421,399
12,281,054
1,048,319
4,012,012
754,844
5,689,283
20,851,820
2,233,169
608,827
7,078,515
5,894,121
1,808,344
5,363,675
493,782
75,830
25,852
1,295,617
86,866
10,966,556
735,601
320,323
37,277
44,953
2,682,715
435,227
87,699
101,690
1,530,262
214,536
82,473
188,252
59,939
107,738
9,360
227,916
428,729
323,877
143,382
39,569
118,592
18,081
94,425
393,970
20,489
1,117,191
765,386
2,867,583
378,963
7,786
217,123
179,304
275,314
394,088
90,820
95,076
10,903
123,838
6,669,666
201,559
5,504
329,540
441,509
12,279
192,921
31,669
1.7%
4.1%
25.3%
3.2%
32.4%
17.1%
9.4%
4.8%
7.9%
16.8%
5.3%
7.2%
7.9%
12.3%
3.5%
2.8%
7.0%
1.5%
2.4%
0.7%
4.3%
6.8%
3.3%
2.9%
1.4%
2.1%
2.0%
5.5%
19.7%
1.7%
13.3%
42.1%
15.1%
4.7%
1.2%
1.9%
5.2%
8.0%
3.2%
8.7%
2.4%
1.4%
2.2%
32.0%
9.0%
0.9%
4.7%
7.5%
0.7%
3.6%
6.4%
559
124
329
411
1,580
435
238
112
68
799
744
73
126
925
394
194
432
244
997
52
327
383
602
277
544
680
158
140
138
51
475
279
3,505
322
128
1,130
634
356
1,004
122
764
42
583
2,909
232
35
386
414
223
474
43
281,421,906
35,305,818
12.5%
26,196
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
5
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Lower Level
Trial Courts
0
1
59
0
187
26
5
0
5
36
1
0
1
16
3
0
1
0
0
0
2
7
2
4
0
4
1
1
4
0
29
98
55
0
0
4
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
391
2
0
0
6
0
3
0
31
960
Hispanic
F/T Hispanic % of State
State
Judges
Judges
0
1
61
0
193
29
5
0
6
40
1
0
1
17
3
0
1
0
0
0
2
7
2
4
0
4
1
1
4
0
30
104
56
0
0
4
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
402
2
0
0
7
0
3
0
998
0.0%
0.8%
18.5%
0.0%
12.2%
6.7%
2.1%
0.0%
8.8%
5.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.8%
1.8%
0.8%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.8%
0.3%
1.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
2.9%
0.0%
6.3%
37.3%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.8%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
3.8%
Sources:
Population figures from the US Bureau of the Census
Number of full-time, authorized state judgeships derived from Table 3 (page 16) of US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
State Court Organization 1998 <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sco98.htm>
Number of Hispanic state judges from American Bar Association, Directory of Minority Judges in the United States, 2000
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
30
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Table 3 - Hispanic Judges in the Federal Judiciary, 1990-2000
(excluding Puerto Rico and US territories)
Hispanic Population
State
2000
1990
1990-2000
Number Change
Hispanic Federal Judges
1990-2000
Percent
Change
Number in
2000
Number in
1990
1990-2000
Number
Change
1990-2000
Percent
Change
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
75,830
25,852
1,295,617
86,866
10,966,556
735,601
320,323
37,277
44,953
2,682,715
435,227
87,699
101,690
1,530,262
214,536
82,473
188,252
59,939
107,738
9,360
227,916
428,729
323,877
143,382
39,569
118,592
18,081
94,425
393,970
20,489
1,117,191
765,386
2,867,583
378,963
7,786
217,123
179,304
275,314
394,088
90,820
95,076
10,903
123,838
6,669,666
201,559
5,504
329,540
441,509
12,279
192,921
31,669
24,629
17,803
688,338
19,876
7,687,938
424,302
213,116
15,820
32,710
1,574,143
108,922
81,390
52,927
904,446
98,788
32,647
93,670
21,984
93,044
6,829
125,102
287,549
201,596
53,884
15,931
61,702
12,174
36,969
124,419
11,333
739,861
579,224
2,214,026
76,726
4,665
139,696
86,160
112,707
232,262
45,752
30,551
5,252
32,741
4,339,905
84,597
3,661
160,288
214,570
8,489
93,194
25,751
51,201
8,049
607,279
66,990
3,278,618
311,299
107,207
21,457
12,243
1,108,572
326,305
6,309
48,763
625,816
115,748
49,826
94,582
37,955
14,694
2,531
102,814
141,180
122,281
89,498
23,638
56,890
5,907
57,456
269,551
9,156
377,330
186,162
653,557
302,237
3,121
77,427
93,144
162,607
161,826
45,068
64,525
5,651
91,097
2,329,761
116,962
1,843
169,252
226,939
3,790
99,727
5,918
207.9%
45.2%
88.2%
337.0%
42.6%
73.4%
50.3%
135.6%
37.4%
70.4%
299.6%
7.8%
92.1%
69.2%
117.2%
152.6%
101.0%
172.6%
15.8%
37.1%
82.2%
49.1%
60.7%
166.1%
148.4%
92.2%
48.5%
155.4%
216.6%
80.8%
51.0%
32.1%
29.5%
393.9%
66.9%
55.4%
108.1%
144.3%
69.7%
98.5%
211.2%
107.6%
278.2%
53.7%
138.3%
50.3%
105.6%
105.8%
44.6%
107.0%
23.0%
0
0
2
0
5
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
na
na
0.0%
na
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
na
0.0%
0.0%
na
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
na
0.0%
0.0%
na
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-50.0%
na
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
na
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Grand Total
35,305,818
22,356,049
12,949,769
57.9%
31
21
10
47.6%
Sources:
Population figures from the US Bureau of the Census
Number of Hispanic federal judges from unpublished data compiled by Carlos G. Ortiz
A REPORT OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (PRLDEF)
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
Table 4 - Hispanics in the State Judiciary, 1990-2000
31
(excluding Puerto Rico and US territories)
Hispanic Population
State
2000
1990
1990-2000
Number
Change
Hispanic State Judges
1990-2000
Percent
Change
Number in
2000
Number in
1990
1990-2000
Number
Change
1990-2000
Percent
Change
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
75,830
25,852
1,295,617
86,866
10,966,556
735,601
320,323
37,277
44,953
2,682,715
435,227
87,699
101,690
1,530,262
214,536
82,473
188,252
59,939
107,738
9,360
227,916
428,729
323,877
143,382
39,569
118,592
18,081
94,425
393,970
20,489
1,117,191
765,386
2,867,583
378,963
7,786
217,123
179,304
275,314
394,088
90,820
95,076
10,903
123,838
6,669,666
201,559
5,504
329,540
441,509
12,279
192,921
31,669
24,629
17,803
688,338
19,876
7,687,938
424,302
213,116
15,820
32,710
1,574,143
108,922
81,390
52,927
904,446
98,788
32,647
93,670
21,984
93,044
6,829
125,102
287,549
201,596
53,884
15,931
61,702
12,174
36,969
124,419
11,333
739,861
579,224
2,214,026
76,726
4,665
139,696
86,160
112,707
232,262
45,752
30,551
5,252
32,741
4,339,905
84,597
3,661
160,288
214,570
8,489
93,194
25,751
51,201
8,049
607,279
66,990
3,278,618
311,299
107,207
21,457
12,243
1,108,572
326,305
6,309
48,763
625,816
115,748
49,826
94,582
37,955
14,694
2,531
102,814
141,180
122,281
89,498
23,638
56,890
5,907
57,456
269,551
9,156
377,330
186,162
653,557
302,237
3,121
77,427
93,144
162,607
161,826
45,068
64,525
5,651
91,097
2,329,761
116,962
1,843
169,252
226,939
3,790
99,727
5,918
207.9%
45.2%
88.2%
337.0%
42.6%
73.4%
50.3%
135.6%
37.4%
70.4%
299.6%
7.8%
92.1%
69.2%
117.2%
152.6%
101.0%
172.6%
15.8%
37.1%
82.2%
49.1%
60.7%
166.1%
148.4%
92.2%
48.5%
155.4%
216.6%
80.8%
51.0%
32.1%
29.5%
393.9%
66.9%
55.4%
108.1%
144.3%
69.7%
98.5%
211.2%
107.6%
278.2%
53.7%
138.3%
50.3%
105.6%
105.8%
44.6%
107.0%
23.0%
0
1
61
0
193
29
5
0
6
40
1
0
1
17
3
0
1
0
0
0
2
7
2
4
0
4
1
1
4
0
30
104
56
0
0
4
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
402
2
0
0
7
0
3
0
1
1
44
0
89
16
0
0
3
25
0
1
0
16
2
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
3
2
0
1
1
0
7
0
13
91
26
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
285
1
0
1
4
0
0
0
-1
0
17
0
104
13
5
0
3
15
1
-1
1
1
1
0
0
0
-4
0
1
7
-1
2
0
3
0
1
-3
0
17
13
30
0
0
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
117
1
0
-1
3
0
3
0
-100.0%
0.0%
38.6%
0.0%
116.9%
81.3%
na
0.0%
100.0%
60.0%
na
-100.0%
na
6.3%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
na
-33.3%
100.0%
0.0%
300.0%
0.0%
na
-42.9%
0.0%
130.8%
14.3%
115.4%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
300.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
41.1%
100.0%
0.0%
-100.0%
75.0%
0.0%
na
0.0%
Grand Total
35,305,818
22,356,049
12,949,769
57.9%
998
644
354
55.0%
Sources:
Population figures from the US Bureau of the Census
Number of Hispanic state judges from American Bar Association, Directory of Minority Judges in the United States, 2000
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC-AMERICAN JUDGES
32
Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund
Table 5 - Hispanic Disparity Ratios for
State and Federal Judgeships
by State, 2000
(excluding Puerto Rico and US territories)
Federal Judges
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
% Hispanic
Population
1.7%
4.1%
25.3%
3.2%
32.4%
17.1%
9.4%
4.8%
7.9%
16.8%
5.3%
7.2%
7.9%
12.3%
3.5%
2.8%
7.0%
1.5%
2.4%
0.7%
4.3%
6.8%
3.3%
2.9%
1.4%
2.1%
2.0%
5.5%
19.7%
1.7%
13.3%
42.1%
15.1%
4.7%
1.2%
1.9%
5.2%
8.0%
3.2%
8.7%
2.4%
1.4%
2.2%
32.0%
9.0%
0.9%
4.7%
7.5%
0.7%
3.6%
Hispanic %
of Federal
Judges
0.0%
0.0%
13.3%
0.0%
7.2%
10.0%
8.3%
0.0%
3.7%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
7.7%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
14.3%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Disparity
Ratio
-100.0%
-100.0%
-47.2%
-100.0%
-77.8%
-41.5%
-11.4%
-100.0%
-52.9%
-72.9%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-52.3%
118.0%
-100.0%
104.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-60.4%
-66.0%
-81.1%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-32.3%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-47.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
State Judges
Hispanic %
of State
Judges
0.0%
0.8%
18.5%
0.0%
12.2%
6.7%
2.1%
0.0%
8.8%
5.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.8%
1.8%
0.8%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.8%
0.3%
1.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
2.9%
0.0%
6.3%
37.3%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.8%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.6%
Sources:
Population figures from the US Bureau of the Census
Number of Hispanic federal judges from unpublished data compiled by Carlos G. Ortiz
Number of Hispanic state judges from American Bar Association, Directory of Minority
Judges in the United States, 2000
Disparity
Ratio
-100.0%
-80.4%
-26.6%
-100.0%
-62.3%
-61.0%
-77.7%
-100.0%
12.3%
-70.2%
-97.5%
-100.0%
-89.9%
-85.1%
-78.4%
-100.0%
-96.7%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-85.8%
-72.9%
-89.8%
-50.5%
-100.0%
-72.2%
-68.4%
-87.1%
-85.3%
-100.0%
-52.4%
-11.4%
-89.4%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-81.5%
-100.0%
-86.0%
-90.7%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-56.8%
-90.4%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-77.4%
-100.0%
-82.4%
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
protecting the civil and human rights of Puerto Ricans and the wider Latino community since 1972
Board of Directors
Carlos G. Ortiz, Esq.
Chair
Maria Josefa Canino -Arroyo, Ed.D.
Vice Chair
Ana M. Barrio, CPA
Treasurer
Diana Correa, Esq.
Secretary
Benito Romano, Esq.
Member-at-large
José R. Sánchez, Ph.D.
Member-at-Large
William F. Callejo, Esq.
Gilbert F. Casellas, Esq.
Israel Colón
Amy Gladstein, Esq.
Former Ambassador Gabriel Guerra-Mondragón
David R. Jones, Esq.
Felix A. Mantilla, Esq.
José S. Reynoso
Eugene Rivera, CSW
Roberto F. Rosario, CPA
Honorary Directors
Alba J. Rovira-Paoli, Esq.
Martin H. Zuckerman, Esq.
President and General Counsel
Juan A. Figueroa
PRLDEF Institute
for Puerto Rican Policy
99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10013-2815
212-739-7516 Fax: 212-431-4276
www.prldef.or g
Senior Policy Executive, PRLDEF
Director, PRLDEF Institute for Puerto Rican Policy
OPENING THE COURTHOUSE DOORS: THE NEED FOR MORE HISPANIC JUDGES
PRLDEF
Angelo Falcón (212-739-7516)
Policy Networking Program Coordinator
Myra Y. Estepa (212-739-7499)
Civic Participation Program Coordinator
Lucía Gómez (212-739-7501)
Minerva Delgado, M.P.P. (212-739-7500)
New York City Bilingual Education Project
Policy Analyst
Shelley Rappaport, M. Ed. (212-739-7581)
Administrative Assistant
Mildred Jurado (212-739-7516)
PRLDEF 2002
Special Projects Coordinator