Bill Overview
Title: Disabled Jurors Nondiscrimination Act
Description: This bill prohibits the exclusion of individuals from jury service on the basis of their disability. Further, the bill prohibits the disqualification of individuals from jury service who fail to meet certain qualifications (e.g., adequate proficiency in English) on the basis of their disability.
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: People with disabilities
Estimated Size: 65000000
- The bill is designed to impact individuals with disabilities who are eligible for jury duty but have previously been excluded due to their disability.
- The global population of individuals with disabilities is significant, as the World Health Organization estimates over 1 billion people globally have some form of disability.
- The legislation specifically addresses discrimination against potential jurors with disabilities, thus directly impacting a subset of disabled individuals who are called for jury duty.
- The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) already addresses discrimination against disabled people, but this bill specifically targets the judicial system and jury services.
Reasoning
- An estimated 65 million Americans have some form of disability; however, only a smaller proportion are eligible and called for jury duty—typically adults without serious disqualifying factors.
- The policy focuses on eliminating barriers for disabled individuals who are eligible for jury duty but are being excluded based on their disabilities.
- Budget considerations mean that the impact needs to be prioritized for those who are directly affected by being systematically excluded from jury duty due to disability.
- Part of the population will be impacted significantly in terms of improved rights and inclusion, leading to potential improvements in their self-reported wellbeing.
- The impact on the daily life of individuals will vary greatly depending on whether they have been affected by exclusion from jury service in the past.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I always felt it was unfair to be disqualified just because I need an interpreter.
- This policy change is a step towards equal treatment for people like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Lawyer (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I never understood why a wheelchair would prevent me from serving on a jury if called.
- If it opens doors for others even if it doesn't affect me directly, I support it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Writer (Portland, OR)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is empowering for many people like me who felt sidelined.
- Knowing I can viably participate in civic duties boosts my confidence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I appreciate the intent, practical considerations for my health outweigh this policy's benefits.
- The policy is good in principle, but for people like me, it's not a significant change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given the right tools, I can serve effectively and would like the chance.
- I'm hopeful but concerned about actual implementation and accommodations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With proper accommodations, I'm less anxious about participating in jury duty.
- The policy should include robust support for disabilities like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Chef (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like an opportunity for people like me to finally be included.
- It's a long-overdue acknowledgment of our capabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Primary School Teacher (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time barriers are broken down across all systems, including jury duty.
- I hope the policy leads to practical and tangible changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Bus Driver (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the value, but personally I'm not interested in jury service given my condition.
- Policy is good; needs to account for personal ability to serve without stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change supports my civic engagement but concerns remain about the practicality.
- Clear, adaptable accommodations will be crucial for implementation success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Training and education are crucial for effective implementation, requiring investment in resources for court staff and supporting personnel.
- Ensuring adequate funding for necessary technological and structural adjustments in the judicial system to accommodate disabled jurors is essential.
- Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be set up to ensure compliance and effectiveness of the bill in judicial processes.