One of the key issues that arose as a result of the passage of the Omnibus Judgeship Act (OJA) is what role affirmative action considerations should play in filling the 152 OJA vacancies. Since about 75 percent of these vacancies had been filled when the interviews were conducted, it was possible to measure the success of the affirmative action effort mandated by Executive order. Data reveal that from an affirmative action standpoint, the results of the recently completed appointment process may have been as good as anyone could expect. Appointments represent an unprecedented increase of more than 100 percent in minority representation on the bench. Although 14 percent of the respondents asserted that the Senate and individual Senators had no affirmative action role, only 22 percent thought that affirmative action must lead to representative outcomes from the selection process. A total of 64 percent felt that the affirmative action role was somewhat symbolic in that it extended only to broadening the search and outreach processes. Most prevalent was the view that contemporary recruitment opportunities and the larger context of political reform would result in an expanded search for qualified candidates. By establishing nominating commissions, many Senators are giving women and minorities a new opportunity to participate in the judicial selection process. However, they reject the idea of giving every group its 'fair share' of judgeships. In general, it is too soon to maintain authoritatively that the Senate has redefined its traditional role of advice and consent to a significant degree. Tables and footnotes are included.