New Law Bars Anti-Gay Bias in Jury Selection

Expanding legal protections for homosexuals, Gov. Gray Davis signed into law Tuesday a bill barring the exclusion of gays from juries solely because of their sexual orientation.

Noting that the state Constitution requires jurors to be picked from a representative cross-section of the community, Davis said some Californians have been routinely eliminated from that pool simply because they are gay.

“That kind of discrimination is wrong,” the governor said. “It violates America’s notion of justice and fair play and has no place in California or in our courtrooms.”

The bill (AB 2418) mirrors a February decision by a state appellate court in Orange County. In a unanimous ruling, the 4th District Court of Appeal said gays should get the same protection against discrimination in jury service that other minority groups enjoy.

Homosexuals--much like African Americans or Jews--qualify for such group protection because they share a common perspective rooted in their life experiences, the justices wrote.

The landmark ruling, however, technically applied only to Orange County, prompting Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) to introduce legislation. That step was important, Davis said, “to ensure the law is applied uniformly and no one is shut out of the courthouse.”

Under current law, jurors may not be excluded based on occupation, race, religion, sex, national origin or economic status. Migden’s bill adds sexual orientation to that list.

In addition, the new law bars lawyers from dismissing potential jurors based on a perception that they may be biased because of their sexual orientation.

Legal scholars said Davis’ action puts California in the vanguard of developing law on discrimination in jury service.

“California was a leader in [banning] gender-based discrimination, and they’re clearly a leader in this area as well,” said Nancy Marder, a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor who studies juries. “It will be very interesting to see how it plays out in courts and to see if the rest of the country follows.”

Advocates for gay organizations called the new law an important victory in their push for more legal protections. They said that beyond its practical benefits for homosexuals in the courtroom, the law sends a message that gays are a recognized group with a contribution to make to civic life.

“It’s a positive statement that gay people are everywhere, that we are inseparably part of communities and that society is diminished if we are excluded,” said Jenny Pizer, managing attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national advocacy group.

Conservatives, meanwhile, said the bill would harm the jury process by allowing gay activists to decide cases.

“If someone feels compelled to express their sexual orientation in a courtroom, they’re more than just gay or lesbian, they’re some kind of activist,” said Art Croney of the Committee on Moral Concerns, a lobbying group. “An identifiable group of people with a chip on their shoulder shouldn’t be on certain juries.”

Despite such opposition, the measure cleared the Legislature, even attracting some Republican support.

Although the governor supported the jury bill, the fate of legislation extending domestic partner rights--considered a higher priority by gay advocates--remained in doubt Tuesday.

Davis said he had made “a good start” on the issue last year through the creation of a domestic partners registry and the extension of domestic partner benefits to state employees.

“We’ve made real progress in that area, and I will continue to make progress in the months and years ahead,” Davis said. “Exactly when that occurs remains to be seen.”

Migden, whose legislation led to the domestic partner registry--which gave official recognition to gay and lesbian couples--acknowledged that 2000 “looks like a dim season” for further progress. One problem, she said, continues to be the difficulty of getting majority support for such bills in the Legislature--especially during an election year.

“There is a disinclination among many [lawmakers] to take chancy votes,” she said. “Bravery is not a heralded attribute among the legislative forces.”