Republican Legislators Push to Revive Controversial Juror Disqualification Law without Just Cause

Republican lawmakers in Arizona are pushing a contentious proposal that could alter the way juries are selected, raising concerns about its implications for minority representation. On a party-line vote, the House Appropriations Committee advanced legislation introduced by Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, to partially reinstate peremptory challenges, allowing attorneys to dismiss potential jurors without needing to disclose specific reasons.

Advocates for the change argue it will improve jury composition. “Maybe they don’t have … the intellectual capacity to do a very complex case, so you strike that juror,” said Marc Osborn, a lobbyist representing major insurance companies. He insists the motivations behind such strikes are purely strategic and not discriminatory.

Opponents, including Barry Aarons from the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, counter that this move is a direct response to losing cases when diverse juries are present. “All of a sudden, over the last couple of years, they suddenly realized they were losing a lot of cases because there were real people getting on juries,” Aarons noted.

Currently, the Arizona Supreme Court’s rules require attorneys to provide evidence of bias when challenging jurors. Finchem’s bill, SB1509, aims to change this by allowing each side in a civil case four peremptory challenges, independent of proving bias.

The move has sparked tension between the legislature and the judiciary. Finchem criticized the Supreme Court’s previous decision to eliminate these challenges, asserting it overstepped its bounds. “The court took it upon itself to essentially write law,” he argued, asserting that this authority should rest with state lawmakers.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer rebuked this stance, stating the court maintains responsibility for procedural rules in trial courts, including jury selection processes. Finchem’s rebuttal suggested that the Chief Justice should consider running for office if she wishes to influence policy directly.

If passed, Finchem’s legislation could lead to significant legal challenges. The contentious history of peremptory challenges dates back to pivotal cases like Batson v. Kentucky, which underscored the need to protect minority representation in juries. Data from Arizona’s courts indicates that despite attempts to diversify juries, minorities are still disproportionately underrepresented.

Justice Timmer emphasized that the court’s decision to eliminate peremptory challenges was carefully considered, aiming to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to serve on juries equitably. “We concluded that everyone has the right and privilege to serve on a jury and should not be stricken for any reason other than an inability to be fair in a particular case,” she stated.

The proposed legislation must now gain approval from the full House before moving to the Senate, which has yet to review the plan. If it reaches the governor’s desk, it will face further scrutiny and debate about its impact on jury diversity across Arizona.