|

California passes bill to let non-citizens serve on juries!

The California legislature passed a bill this week that would make the state the first of many blue states in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

The government lets non-citizens serve in the military. It’s simply a small step to no doubt justify voting by non-citizens in the near future. Who needs a comprehensive immigration law, when we have California politicians? Is the U.S. Constitution used in California anymore – anywhere?

Have non-citizens studied the laws of the land or taken a civics course in high school? Are there any standards for jurors to be capable of interpreting the judge’s instructions to the jury? Are there any standards for anything in California?

Excerpt:

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat – Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced – voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge.

It’s good to know that there are minimal restrictions in California  to be a juror. As far as comparing the citizenship of a juror to California judges, the California judge’s decisions have been reversed by the U.S. Appellate and Supreme Courts so many times the state should cease trying cases and just let the verdict go directly to the upper courts. That would take care of any juror shortage.

Excerpt:

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

“Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding,” Harkey said before the vote. “I hope we can focus on that. Let’s not break something; it’s not broken now. Let’s not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There’s a reason for it.”

In California the reason is probably that being a juror is simply another job that most Americans won’t do, so let non-citizens take that job, too!

How many appeals do you think will result from this law, after a defendant is found guilty, not by a lawful judgment of his peers, but a jury that includes non-citizens of the United States?

Another overturned California ruling anyone?

 

Share: