BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 87
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 17, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB
87 (Mark Stone) - As Introduced January 7, 2015
SUBJECT: JURORS: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD EXISTING LAW PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN
THE EXERCISE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BE CLARIFIED?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill would update the statute that
prohibits discrimination in the exercise of peremptory
challenges to prospective jurors to clarify that the grounds
prohibited by other laws regarding discrimination by the state
and state-funded entities also apply to the exercise of
peremptory challenges to prospective jurors.
This bill is identical to a bill introduced in 2014 by Assembly
Member Ting (AB 2646) that passed this Committee and the
Assembly, but was changed to another subject in the Senate.
SUMMARY: Clarifies the prohibition against discrimination in
the exercise of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors.
Specifically, this bill aligns existing non-discrimination law
with jury selection law by defining discriminatory peremptory
challenges as those categories listed within subdivision (a) of
Section 11135 of the Government Code, including race, national
AB 87
Page 2
origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, color, genetic information or disability.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that no eligible person shall be exempt from service
as a trial juror by reason of occupation, economic status, or
any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the
Government Code (as set out in item #3 below), or for any
other reason. (Code of Civil Procedure section 204.)
2 Provides that a party may not use a peremptory challenge to
remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that
the prospective juror is biased merely because of his or her
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual
orientation, or similar grounds. (Code of Civil Procedure
section 231.5.)
3 Prohibits discrimination by the state and state-funded
entities in all programs or activities with respect to race,
national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age,
sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or
disability, as defined. (Government Code section 11135.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: The author explains the reason for the bill as
follows:
The jury system provides the foundation for the
California justice system. We rely upon an impartial
jury to yield fair and just results. The jury, by
law, should be a cross section of the population in a
community. Without specific protection from
AB 87
Page 3
peremptory challenges that are based on the assumption
of bias, because of gender identity, gender expression
and other innate characteristics, it is possible for
many community members to be excluded from prospective
jury service.
Under existing law, there is no specific protection
from peremptory challenges based on the assumption of
bias as a result of gender identity, gender
expression, ethnicity, age, genetic information, and
disability. This bill aims to protect against
discrimination and ensure all aforementioned parties
are treated equally under the law with regard to jury
service and trial by a jury of their peers.
This Bill Updates The Peremptory Challenge Statute To Make Clear
That It May Not Be Used To Discriminate Against Prospective
Jurors On Grounds Otherwise Prohibited. Existing law sets forth
a list of characteristics on which peremptory challenges to
prospective jurors may not be based. That list has not been
updated to reflect changes in the state's general
non-discrimination statute, section 11135 of the Government
Code, which arguably already governs peremptory challenges by
generally prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race,
national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age,
sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or
disability in any program or activity that is conducted,
operated or administered by the state or any state agency,
funded directly by the state, or receives any financial
assistance from the state.
While the existing catch-all provision prohibiting
discrimination on "similar grounds" might be interpreted to
cover all characteristics within section 11135 of the Government
Code, this bill would make the point explicit and therefore give
potentially helpful guidance to courts, parties and their
counsel.
AB 87
Page 4
Prior Related Legislation: AB 2646 (Ting) of 2014 was identical
to this bill; it passed this Committee and the Assembly, but was
changed to another subject in the Senate.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Civil Liberties Union of California
AFSCME
California Communities United Institute
California Public Defenders Association
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Transgender Law Center
28 Individuals
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared
by: Khadijah Hargett/JUD./(916) 319-2334
AB 87
Page 5