BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1401|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1401
Author: Assembly Judiciary Committee
Amended: 6/10/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/25/13
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
NOES: Walters, Anderson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 45-26, 4/25/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Jury duty: eligibility
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill allows for a lawful permanent immigrant to
serve on a jury.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides that the Legislature recognizes that trial by jury
is a cherished constitutional right, and that jury service is
an obligation of citizenship. It also provides that it is
the policy of the State of California that all persons
selected for jury service shall be selected at random from
the population of the area served by the court; that all
qualified persons have an equal opportunity, in accordance
with current law, to be considered for jury service in the
CONTINUED
AB 1401
Page
2
state and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for
that purpose; and that it is the responsibility of jury
commissioners to manage all jury systems in an efficient,
equitable, and cost-effective manner, in accordance with
current law.
2. Requires that all persons selected for jury service be
selected at random, from a source or sources inclusive of a
representative cross section of the population of the area
served by the court. Sources may include, in addition to
other lists, customer mailing lists, telephone directories,
or utility company lists. Existing law specifies that the
list of registered voters and the Department of Motor
Vehicles' list of licensed drivers and identification
cardholders resident within the area served by the court, are
appropriate source lists for selection of jurors. These two
lists, when substantially purged of duplicate names, shall be
considered inclusive of a representative cross section of the
population as required.
3. Specifies that no eligible person be exempt from service as a
trial juror by reason of occupation, economic status, or any
characteristic listed or defined in Government Code Section
11135 (relating to discrimination on the basis of race,
national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age,
sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or
disability), or for any other reason. An eligible person may
only be excused from jury service for undue hardship, as
specified.
4. Specifies that no person shall be excluded from eligibility
for jury service in the State of California for any reason
other than those reasons provided below.
5. Provides that all persons are eligible and qualified to be
prospective trial jurors, except the following:
persons who are not citizens of the United States;
persons who are less than 18 years of age;
CONTINUED
AB 1401
Page
3
persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of
California, as specified;
persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction
wherein they are summoned to serve;
persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in
office or a felony, and whose civil rights have not been
restored;
persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge
of the English language, provided that no person shall be
deemed incompetent solely because of the loss of sight or
hearing in any degree or other disability which impedes
the person's ability to communicate or which impairs or
interferes with the person's mobility;
persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in
any court of this state; and
persons who are the subject of conservatorship.
This bill allows a lawful permanent immigrant to be eligible to
serve on a jury if the other requirements are met.
Background
Commonly discussed as a citizen's civic duty, jury service
fundamentally functions to "preserve[ ] the democratic element
of the law, as it guards the rights of the parties and ensures
continued acceptance of the laws by all of the people." (Green
v. United States (1958) 356 United States (U.S.) 165, 215
(Black, J., dissenting). It "affords ordinary citizens a
valuable opportunity to participate in a process of government,
an experience fostering, one hopes, a respect for law." (Duncan
v. Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 187 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, "[i]ndeed, with the
exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege
of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to
participate in the democratic process." (Powers v. Ohio (1991)
CONTINUED
AB 1401
Page
4
499 U.S. 400, 406.)
Under California law, every person over 18 years of age is
eligible and qualified to be a prospective juror unless they
fail to meet certain minimal requirements. For example, they
must be a resident of the jurisdiction they are summoned to
serve, be possessed of sufficient knowledge of the English
language, and not be subject to conservatorship. Among these
minimal requirements is also requirement that the person be a
U.S. citizen. Any person who does not meet all of the
eligibility requirements is automatically excluded from serving
on juries. As such, noncitizens are categorically excluded from
jury service as a result of this statutory requirement.
Citizenship is neither compelled by the federal constitution,
nor is it required by the state's constitution. While the U.S.,
Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the issue of whether
the citizenship requirement for jury service violates
constitutional rights such as the Sixth Amendment or the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has at times
in its history appeared to recognize, in dictum, that state laws
may require a juror be a citizen. (See U.S. v. Wood (1936) 299
U.S. 123, 145, where the Court referred to the mixed jury of
citizens and aliens as a type of traditional jury requirement
that is not constitutionally compelled by the Sixth Amendment to
secure impartiality; see also Carter v. Jury Commission (1970)
396 U.S. 320, 332, where the Court stated in dicta that
"[s]tates remain free to confine the selection [of jurors] to
citizens.")
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Societal
notions of who is qualified to be a juror have evolved over
time. Historically, we have excluded non-whites, women and
persons over 60 - restrictions that we now recognize are
unrelated to good jury service. Code of Civil Procedure
[S]ection 203 currently requires that every juror be a U.S.
citizen. This requirement is an historical artifact that
unreasonably excludes many qualified members of the community
who are fully able and willing to contribute. It also creates a
wasteful and unnecessary ground for challenging jury verdicts.
CONTINUED
AB 1401
Page
5
Citizenship is poorly correlated with the essential attributes
for jury service; it excludes many qualified members of the
community while including others who may not be as capable as
some of those who are excluded. This distinction is a product
of statutory preference, not constitutional necessity.
Citizenship is not required of other participants in the justice
system, such as lawyers, judges, other court personnel,
witnesses and parties, and is not a sensible requirement for
jurors. Because juror lists are drawn from DMV records that
include many non-citizens, it would be more efficient and less
costly to include lawful permanent immigrants in the eligible
jury pool if they otherwise meet the criteria for eligibility.
Jury service is also an important mode of civic engagement for
permanent immigrants, who make up a significant portion of our
neighbors, friends, family and coworkers, and it is an
appropriate obligation for those who benefit from the protection
of our laws and can be rightfully called on to contribute to
their communities."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 45-26, 4/25/13
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla,
Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto,
Gomez, Gordon, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer,
Levine, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Pan, Perea, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Torres,
Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Harkey,
Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell,
Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Cooley, Daly, Fox, Lowenthal,
Nazarian, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Vacancy
AL:d 6/26/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 1401
Page
6
CONTINUED