Bipartisan effort in Senate to end jury discrimination
That bill follows an investigation by The American Independent in May that detailed instances where LGBT people may have been discriminated against during jury selection in both state and federal cases.
The bill was introduced on Sept. 21 by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, and is co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
“Discriminating against a potential juror because of sexual orientation or gender identity is unacceptable, and it should not be tolerated,” Shaheen said in a statement announcing the bill. “Our country is founded on principles of inclusion and acceptance and the jury selection process should be no different.”
Shaheen’s bill, the Jury ACCESS (Access for Capable Citizens and Equality in Service Selection) Act of 2012, is identical to one offered in the House in May by Rep. Steve Rothman, a Democrat from New Jersey. Following redistricting, Rothman lost his reelection bid in a June primary against fellow Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell.
Rothman’s bill languished in committee after a spokesperson for committee chair Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, told TAI that Smith had no plans to bring the bill to a vote.
Shaheen’s bill would “prohibit the exclusion of individuals from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual orientation or gender identity” by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing federal statute that currently bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.”
As TAI reported in May, the Department of Justice told a panel of judges as recently as last year that it “takes no position” on whether U.S. Supreme Court decisions barring jury discrimination on the basis of race and sex should extended to cover sexual orientation.
That investigation also revealed a number of cases in both state and federal courts where potential jurors appeared to have been rejected because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Currently, only two states — California and Oregon — have laws that bar discrimination in the jury selection process on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. A similar bill in Minnesota died in committee in May.
In a test of California’s law earlier this year, a San Diego judge ruled that prosecutors illegally dismissed at least one juror based sexual orientation in a criminal case against several marriage equality activists. San Diego Superior Court Judge Joan Weber called the discrimination in the case “shocking.”
leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #h tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents and 5000 dollars to a person name sandman at the US embassy in manila. she also submitted fake employment records to obtain a work visa. Her husband carlos b. morales also submitted fake documents (land titles and bank statements) to obtain a tourist visa. Her son carlo iii also used such and helped 2 other people to obtain a US tourist visa.
Well, I do have a story planned out that sorta deevls into her bra troubles, but it’s not the size or fitting that it deals with.Plus, she’s far from shy just frustrated with some of the excessive attention she gets.
Of course she can! This trial may be huge for ppoele who are following it, but not so much for the average bear.Just last year was a Presidential election and you’d be shocked at the vast number of ppoele happily announcing that they weren’t following it. It was on all 24 hour cable channels, every newspaper and TONS of websites for months. Casey Anthony’s woes are relegated to Nancy Grace and the occasional CourtTV segment.Casey Anthony isn’t the end-all be-all to more folks than I guess you’d imagine. Michael Skakel went on trial in CT and it was BIG news, with constant publicity. They chose a jury there with little fanfare. It happens all the time. Just because *you* pay attention to this case doesn’t mean most ppoele on the jury selection list are even close.