Topline:
In his attempts to solve a multibillion-dollar state deficit, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new budget plan would terminate a legislative experiment that increased pay for juries in an effort to make them more fairly represent the communities they serve.
The backstory: Since September, jurors in seven counties have been eligible to receive $100 per day while serving on a jury, a significant improvement to the statewide norm of $15. The Jury Duty Pilot Program originated from a law Newsom signed three years ago. Killing it early would save about $27.5 million, according to Newsom’s latest budget proposal.
What's new: Now after just eight months, several pilot program counties have moved to end the increased stipend after Newsom’s revised budget proposal came out in May.
The reaction: Assemblymember Alex Lee, the Milpitas Democrat who authored the original bill that established the program, said it was “extremely disappointing” to see the governor undo a law that passed through the Legislature and which he’d previously signed.
Read on... for more on the implications of the program ending.
In his attempts to solve a multibillion-dollar state deficit, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new budget plan would terminate a legislative experiment that increased pay for juries in an effort to make them more fairly represent the communities they serve.
Since September, jurors in seven counties have been eligible to receive $100 per day while serving on a jury, a significant improvement to the statewide norm of $15.
The Jury Duty Pilot Program originated from a law Newsom signed three years ago. Killing it early would save about $27.5 million, according to Newsom’s latest budget proposal.
Funded as a two-year program, the legislation required the Judicial Council, the agency that oversees all of California’s courts, to study juror data and produce a report on how the increased per diem impacts overall jury diversity.
Now after just eight months, several pilot program counties have moved to end the increased stipend after Newsom’s revised budget proposal came out in May.
Assemblymember Alex Lee, the Milpitas Democrat who authored the original bill that established the program, said it was “extremely disappointing” to see the governor undo a law that passed through the Legislature and which he’d previously signed.
“Juror pay hasn’t been increased in 25 years. Because of the incredibly low pay of just $15 a day starting their second day of service, jurors are being excused for financial hardship. This decreases the economic and demographic diversity of our juries and can lead to trials that are not as representative of our communities.”
Although most of the participating counties have announced discontinuing the program immediately, Alameda County has yet to determine how it will proceed without state funding.
“I think it’s absolutely shameful that this program is being considered to be cut in the May Revise,” said Alameda County Chief Public Defender Brendon Woods.
“When you think about the cost of this program — about $27.5 million, and the cost that, as a state, we pay nearly $14 billion to incarcerate people in prison — it’s kind of ridiculous that this small amount was being cut to make sure that our juries are more diverse.”
Woods spoke not only about the impact of losing the Jury Duty Pilot Program, but also what that means in light of voters passing Proposition 36, which signaled a swing away from criminal justice reform and a return to more tough-on-crime, mass incarceration era policies.
“As a state, we recently passed Prop. 36 — a law that is going to incarcerate more low income or Black and brown people,” said Woods. “They’re going to be in prison and jail because of that law. And while we’re doing that, we’re also saying that we’re gonna cut funding from a program that’s going to actually give people who are low income — Black and brown — a chance to have a voice in the system.
“So we’re increasing incarceration of people while also removing their power. I cannot think of something that’s actually more devious than that.”
San Francisco initiated its own $100 per diem, “Be The Jury” program in 2022 and generated its own study on how the increased pay led to demographic improvement directly proportional to its population. After one year, the city reported that people who qualified for the higher per diem had a lower household income than other jurors. It also found that people of color reported that the extra money “removed barriers” for them to serve on a jury at a higher rate compared to white jurors.
The San Francisco program and its well documented positive results, spearheaded in 2021 by then-Assemblymember Phil Ting, ultimately contributed to Lee’s bill passing in 2022 and taking effect last fall.
California does not collect demographic data from jurors. For many counties across California, jury pools generally tend to be filled mostly by retirees, those who can afford to lose multiple days of income, or those whose employers compensate for days’ wages.
In a recent Los Angeles courtroom where jurors are paid the statewide per diem of $15, a Black mother sat and observed jury selection for the criminal trial of her son.
Regardless of racial demographics, almost everyone seated on that jury at the close of voir dire seemed to be educated, fairly affluent professionals and retirees.
“My son is 23 years old,” the Inglewood mom said, her eyes wrought with frustration. “Does that look like a jury of his peers?”
Less than two weeks later, her son was convicted of first-degree murder and now faces a life sentence in state prison.
Lee said that the Judicial Council will still be obligated to release a six-month report of Jury Duty Pilot Program data to the legislature for review.
Joe Garcia is a California Local News fellow.
