Kentucky has officially elected the first woman to be chief justice in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Debra Hembree Lambert, a UK alumni from the College of Law and Eastern Kentucky University graduate will begin this position on Jan. 6, 2025. 

“I am confident that Chief Justice-elect Lambert will lead the judicial branch with integrity and ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice for this great commonwealth,” current Chief Justice Laurence VanMeter said in a release. 

Prior to her work on the Kentucky Supreme Court as 3rd Supreme Court District Justice, Lambert served as a circuit judge for the 28th Judicial District. She also worked as a family court judge and created the first drug court in the area. Through her 17 years of experience as a justice or judge, her qualifications don’t go unnoticed. 

Whether in family courts or U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, she has served plenty of time to qualify as the next chief justice. 

So what does this really mean for the future of the Kentucky Supreme Court? More specifically, what does this mean for our new chief justice?

Nothing. The Kentucky Supreme Court remains to have a majority right-leaning view on politics and will continue to function the same way they previously had with or without Lambert in this position of power. 

The real question is why we must elect yet again another “mild” conservative into higher positions of power in Kentucky’s branches. Whether it is Congress or the Kentucky Supreme Court, this does not seem like a fair representation of our commonwealth.

Places such as Louisville, Lexington and Northern Kentucky tend to lean further left according to Kentucky’s Political Map; it seems ill-fitting to have yet again less representation for our larger cities. 

Although Lambert seems genuinely qualified in a multitude of ways, I doubt she speaks for all Kentuckians. 

There are some great things she stands for. According to Kentucky’s Court of Justice website, “Justice Lambert currently volunteers as a certified suicide prevention trainer, training others how to properly intervene to prevent suicide.” While she clearly cares about those who struggle with suicidal ideation, she fails to care about other accesses to healthcare. 

Lambert has also been endorsed by other organizations such as the Tri County Republican Women and Kentucky’s Right to Life, according to Ballotpedia. 

By having the endorsement of these groups, I question her ability to remove bias from her decision-making in the Supreme Court. As a judge, you are meant to be entirely unbiased, but due to having been endorsed by these organizations, I am skeptical about her conscience remaining neutral.

Being endorsed specifically by an organization that wishes to abolish access to necessary healthcare, yet advocating for mental health doesn’t seem like the best reflection of our commonwealth. I highly doubt she has experience in the medical field to pick and choose medical topics to support and become against so easily. 

Is this what we need in Kentucky’s Supreme Court as chief justice?

Regardless of Roberts Courts, a period in the Supreme Court that was quite conservative and was dominated by a majority conservative wing, decided that judges are not politicians. However politics does become a major factor in decision-making subconsciously. 

Regardless of political party, politics comes into play in any decision-making process in the court systems, especially now more than ever. Even in Kentucky, it is crucial to hear from other perspectives that don’t just align with a singular ideology.

For example, the ruling for Graham v. Adams decided whether or not the lines drawn for redistricting were true signs of gerrymandering and if they were being drawn severely enough to favor certain parties.

“A group of Kentucky voters, sitting members of the Kentucky House of Representatives and the Kentucky Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against Kentucky’s Secretary of State and State Board of Elections challenging the state’s enacted congressional and state House redistricting plans as partisan gerrymanders in violation of the Kentucky Constitution,” The American Redistricting Project said. 

The courts decided in this case the current district plans were in fact legal and that the courts allow for political party interests when it came to redistricting. Democrats were obviously not pleased by the end results of the ruling, as the Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering was allowed.

Will we have to face severe racial disparities? Will we have to face terrifying extremes? These district lines are crucial when deciding seats in our already majority Republican House of Representatives.

“In last year’s election, the GOP won 80 of the 100 state House seats. Under an alternative plan relied upon by the plaintiffs, Republicans were projected to win at least 77 seats,” Politico wrote. 

These seats determine the representation of every Kentuckian, and if the Kentucky Supreme Court is not careful about how they represent the commonwealth, I worry about the future of our state government. 

Although my opinions may be bleak and a bit divisive, I do think Lambert is fit for the position based on her qualifications. Not only this, but to have a woman in high positions emphasizes representation that is needed especially in Kentucky. 

I don’t think her being elected into this position will create the “downfall” of the commonwealth, I do think her political views are something to note and keep in mind when understanding future cases sent to Kentucky’s courts. 

Lambert is making history before our eyes. The first woman to be Kentucky’s chief justice is a big accomplishment, but to have this position is a privilege within itself. 

Yes, we can parade her with applause, but at the end of the day there is a sense of authority when holding this position. Yes, Lambert is qualified, however her political leaning worries me as to how the Supreme Court will run.