Amended in Senate June 12, 2014

Amended in Assembly March 28, 2014

California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 2646

Introduced by Assembly Member Ting

February 21, 2014

An act to begin delete amend Section 231.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to jurors. end delete begin insert add Section 53.7 to the Civil Code, relating to civil rights. end insert

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 2646, as amended, Ting. begin delete Jurors: peremptory challenge. end delete begin insert Civil rights: structural equal protection. end insert

begin insert

The California Constitution prohibits a person from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from being denied equal protection of the laws. The United States Constitution prohibits a state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Existing case law interprets that provision as guaranteeing racial minorities the right to full participation in the political life of the community, and prohibiting racial or ethnic groups from being denied, or precluded from entering into the political process in a reliable and meaningful manner.

end insert begin insert

Existing law permits individuals whose personal rights have been violated, in certain circumstances, to bring a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief.

end insert begin insert

This bill would prohibit a statute, ordinance, or other specified enactment from denying a minority group, as defined, structural equal protection of the law by altering, restructuring, or reordering the policy decisionmaking process in a manner that burdens the ability of members of the minority group to effect the enactment of future legislation, solely with respect to a matter that inures primarily to the benefit of, or is primarily of interest to, one or more minority groups. The bill would authorize a member of a minority group, as defined, to bring a civil action challenging the validity of a statute or ordinance, or other enactment on that basis. The provision in question would be determined valid only upon a showing by the government that burden it imposes is necessary to serve a compelling public interest, and is no greater than necessary to serve that interest. The bill would include supporting legislative findings and declarations.

end insert begin delete

Existing law prohibits a party from using 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.

end delete begin delete

This bill would also prohibit a party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of ethnic group identification, age, genetic information, or disability.

end delete

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

begin insert

begin insert SECTION 1. end insert   

end insert

begin insert The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following: end insert

begin insert

(a) The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution as disfavoring and subjecting to “strict
scrutiny” state and local laws that (1) target a suspect
classification of persons, (2) restrict a fundamental right, or (3)
alter the political policymaking process with respect to an issue
of primary concern to a minority group or groups. This last
doctrine is commonly referred to as “structural equal protection.”

end insert begin insert

(b) The doctrine of structural equal protection was established
primarily through two United States Supreme Court decisions,
Hunter v. Erickson (1969) 393 U.S. 385, and Washington v. Seattle
School District No. 1 (1982) 458 U.S. 457. As a result, this doctrine
has also been referred to as the “Hunter/Seattle” doctrine. In the
recent case of Schuette v. BAMN, et. al. (2014) 134 S. Ct. 1623,
the United States Supreme Court has further interpreted the
structural equal protection doctrine, although the implications of
this new interpretation are not yet clear.

end insert begin insert

(c) Because the Hunter/Seattle doctrine was established as a
part of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution, there has not been the need or
occasion for the California Supreme Court to determine whether
the California Constitution, through its own guarantee of equal
protection of the laws under Section 7 of Article I, also includes
structural equal protection.

end insert begin insert

(d) Because the California Constitution goes at least as far as
the United States Constitution in protecting rights and liberties,
and in some cases has been interpreted to go beyond the United
States Constitution in providing such protections, the guarantee
of structural equal protection that has been part of the United
States Constitution for nearly 50 years should appropriately be
recognized in the California Constitution. Specifically, the
Legislature believes that Section 7 of Article I of the California
Constitution provides broader protection of individual liberties
and rights than the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, and these broader
protections include the structural equal protection doctrine, as
interpreted prior to Schuette v. BAMN.

end insert begin insert

(e) Independent of the guarantees afforded by the California
Constitution, the Legislature believes that the Hunter/Seattle
doctrine provides a prudent and salutary rule for statutory
protection against discriminatory statutes, ordinances, or other
state or local rules, regulations, or enactments.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 2. end insert   

end insert

begin insert Section 53.7 is added to the end insert begin insert Civil Code end insert begin insert , to read: end insert

begin insert

begin insert 53.7. end insert   

(a) A statute, ordinance, or other state or local rule,
regulation, or enactment shall not deny a minority group structural
equal protection of the law by altering, restructuring, or reordering
the policy decisionmaking process in a manner that burdens the
ability of members of the minority group to effect the enactment
of future legislation, solely with respect to a matter that inures
primarily to the benefit of, or is primarily of interest to, one or
more minority groups.

(b) (1) A member of a minority group, as defined in paragraph
(2), may bring a civil action challenging the validity of a statute,
ordinance, or other state or local rule, regulation, or enactment,
pursuant to subdivision (a).

(2) For purposes of this section, “minority group” means a
group of persons who share in common any race, ethnicity,
nationality, or sexual orientation.

(c) A statute, ordinance, or other state or local rule, regulation,
or enactment shall be determined valid in an action brought
pursuant to this section, only upon a showing by the government
that the burden imposed by the statute, ordinance, or other state
or local rule, regulation or enactment satisfies both of the following
criteria:

(1) The burden is necessary to serve a compelling government
interest.

(2) The burden is no greater than necessary to serve the
compelling government interest.

end insert

begin delete

SECTION 1.  

Section 231.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
amended to read:

231.5.  

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 a characteristic listed
or defined in subdivision (a) of Section 11135 of the Government
Code, or similar grounds.

end delete