There's a lack of diversity among judges in the federal judiciary, according to new research. Only two-thirds of Latino justices have won re-election campaigns since 2000, compared to 90 percent of white justices. This is partially due to voters' aversion to Latino surnames.

The Center for American Progress published a report, "More Money, More Problems: Fleeting Victories for Diversity on the Bench," in October. That report stated re-election rates for Supreme Court justices in states with contested races was 88 percent. Only 80 percent of black justices and 67 percent of Hispanics have been reelected since the year 2000.

Black and Latino justices running in their first election have just a 68 percent re-election rate. One reason for that is surname preference. Voters prefer a specific type of last name, particularly Irish surnames, and the "name game" contributes to electing patterns that preserves the careers of white justices while Latino justices find lower re-election rates. If voters assume a justice is Latino based on their name, they may find they'll be voted against for that reason.

The report sought to uncover reasons for the disparity in reelection for Latino and black justices, which has resulted in party politics, voter bias, campaign fund barriers and other factors. Publicly funded elections tend to result in courts that are more diverse. However, funding is an issue, and excessive spending during judicial races hinders candidates and voters, and disservices ethnic candidates. The absence of multicultural individuals from the bench is troubling because people of color are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.

The judiciary played an important role during the Voting Right Acts of 1965, Brown v. Board of Education and other progressive actions throughout history, and it continues to play a key role. The prevailing lack of diversity complicates the notion of overall fairness within the justice system. Also, a diverse presence is important because those distinct voices and varied, crucial perspective suggests inclusion and leveraging diversity.

"As our country grapples with demographic change and the associated issues, there is a dearth of scholarship and data around judicial diversity -- specifically, where the judiciary intersects with the political process through judicial elections. This report aims to add to that sparse canon of information," said the report.

Judicial diversity has improved on the federal level under President Barack Obama, but there is still a great deal work to be done. Since Obama took office, he's appointed 109 federal judges who are either people of color or women. Additionally, for the first time in history, majority of the 137 judges on the U.S. courts of appeals are people of color or women. He's also appointed more diverse circuit judges and prosecutors.

The report on judicial diversity offers information about concerns surrounding judicial elections and politics. It also speaks on a goal to create a system where citizens trust their courts, which is best achieved when judges are a reflection of the American population. Nationally and statewide, candidates with Latino names aren't preferred, though they do well in local races.

Recommendations offered by the report include advocates of diverse judiciary supporting Latino and African American lawyers who intend to become judges. Also, don't simply choose a candidate because they have the "right" surname.

Related