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: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: Disabled individuals eligible for jury duty
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill impacts individuals with disabilities who are eligible for jury duty.
- It seeks to ensure these individuals are not unjustly excluded from serving as jurors due to their disability.
- The law will have a direct impact on those in the trial jury selection process who might previously have been dismissed due to their disability.
Reasoning
- The Disabled Jurors Nondiscrimination Act primarily affects disabled individuals eligible for jury duty, ensuring they are not excluded based on their disabilities.
- The general American population includes about 61 million adults with disabilities, out of which those eligible for jury duty are directly impacted.
- Given the large target population and budget considerations, the policy might implement training programs and accessibility improvements in jury selection processes.
- Not all individuals with disabilities serve on juries frequently; thus, the policy directly impacts only those called for duty.
- We include a range of interviews considering diverse disability types, awareness of civic duties, and public concerns about equitable jury representation.
Simulated Interviews
Accountant (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a step forward in ensuring equal rights.
- I'm hopeful it means more accessibility at courthouses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good to see the government addressing disabilities.
- Concerned if resources really reach those in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see some recognition of the issues we face.
- I wonder if this will genuinely change jury experiences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope it leads to physical and technological accessibility improvements.
- Past jury summons were challenging.
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 |
Teacher (Ohio)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More inclusion is always positive, hoping for real change in attitudes.
- Awareness and sensitivity are key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Lawyer (Illinois)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's empowering for disabled individuals.
- Let's ensure the policy is followed consistently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graphic Designer (Virginia)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great on paper, needs robust implementation.
- Awareness of such policies must reach all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Sales Representative (Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this reduces bias in juror selection.
- Action speaks louder than policy text, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Artist (Georgia)
Age: 66 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing access is crucial, even if I may not be directly impacted frequently.
- Procedures must evolve to be truly inclusive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Nurse (Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This may help ensure fair representation in the jury system.
- Concerned about how quickly changes will be implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation may require collaboration with advocacy and disability-rights groups for proper training and awareness.
- Monitoring mechanisms may need to be established to ensure compliance and proper execution of the act's provisions.
- The act could set a precedent influencing future legislative measures aimed at increasing inclusivity beyond jury selection.