LEANING RIGHT - California will be the first state to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve as jurors under a bill that recently cleared the Assembly and heads to Gov. Brown’s desk.
If signed into law, the legislation would make immigrants who are legal and permanent residents eligible for jury duty.
It would not change other requirements for jurors, such as being at least 18 years old and having English proficiency. They also must live in the county making the summons.
All but three Democrats voted for the measure whichwas unanimously opposed by state Republicans.
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said the bill would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into their community. Immigrants already can serve in other roles in the courts system, including working as judges, he said.
There is nothing in the Constitution that establishes such a jury pool. We know that we all have the “right to have our case heard before a jury of our peers” although there is no such right in the Constitution.
The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. It requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. It narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Finally, it requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars.
Note that no definition of jury "of peers" guaranteed has ever been established. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing — in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."
No legal precedence exists that stipulates that legal non-citizens be eligible for jury duty.
What is the motivation for this bill? Is there a dearth of potential jurors in the pool that this bill will solve?
There are approximately 190,000 non-citizens, permanent legal residents in California. The largest number of legal non-citizen residents in California (50,000) is from Mexico. Other sizeable numbers come from the Philippines and China, approximately 25,000 each. Approximately 15,000 are from India.
The population of California is 38,000,000. Therefore the percentage of legal non-citizen residents in the state is .5%. That reads point five percent which is half of one percent. Of this number an even smaller percentage would be eligible for the jury pool if this bill becomes law.
What shortage is the Assemblyman addressing that he wants to fix with an increase of less than one half of one percent to the pool of potential jurors.
Maybe the Assemblyman is preparing for the case in the future when a defendant who is a legal non-citizen resident can have a jury of his peers.
It is still fuzzy math to us.
(Kay Martin is an author and a CityWatch contributor. His new book, Along for the Ride, is now available.)
He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 11 Issue 69
Pub: Aug 27, 2013