Bill Text: CA AB2646 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Amended

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Civil rights: political structure equal protection.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)

Status: (Passed) 2014-09-30 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 912, Statutes of 2014. [AB2646 Detail]

Download: California-2013-AB2646-Amended.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 2646	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 12, 2014
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MARCH 28, 2014

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Ting

                        FEBRUARY 21, 2014

   An act to  amend Section 231.5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to jurors.   add Section 53.7 to the
Civil Code, relating to civil rights. 


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 2646, as amended, Ting.  Jurors: peremptory challenge.
  Civil rights: structural equal protection.  
   The California Constitution prohibits a person from being deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from
being denied equal protection of the laws. The United States
Constitution prohibits a state from denying to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Existing case law
interprets that provision as guaranteeing racial minorities the right
to full participation in the political life of the community, and
prohibiting racial or ethnic groups from being denied, or precluded
from entering into the political process in a reliable and meaningful
manner.  
   Existing law permits individuals whose personal rights have been
violated, in certain circumstances, to bring a civil action for
damages or other appropriate relief.  
   This bill would prohibit a statute, ordinance, or other specified
enactment from denying a minority group, as defined, structural equal
protection of the law by altering, restructuring, or reordering the
policy decisionmaking process in a manner that burdens the ability of
members of the minority group to effect the enactment of future
legislation, solely with respect to a matter that inures primarily to
the benefit of, or is primarily of interest to, one or more minority
groups. The bill would authorize a member of a minority group, as
defined, to bring a civil action challenging the validity of a
statute or ordinance, or other enactment on that basis. The provision
in question would be determined valid only upon a showing by the
government that burden it imposes is necessary to serve a compelling
public interest, and is no greater than necessary to serve that
interest. The bill would include supporting legislative findings and
declarations.  
   Existing law prohibits a party from using a peremptory challenge
to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the
prospective juror is biased merely because of his or her race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or similar
grounds.  
   This bill would also prohibit a party from using a peremptory
challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of ethnic group
identification, age, genetic information, or disability. 
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   SECTION 1.    The Legislature finds and declares all
of the following:  
   (a) The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution as disfavoring and subjecting to "strict scrutiny" state
and local laws that (1) target a suspect classification of persons,
(2) restrict a fundamental right, or (3) alter the political
policymaking process with respect to an issue of primary concern to a
minority group or groups. This last doctrine is commonly referred to
as "structural equal protection."  
   (b) The doctrine of structural equal protection was established
primarily through two United States Supreme Court decisions, Hunter
v. Erickson (1969) 393 U.S. 385, and Washington v. Seattle School
District No. 1 (1982) 458 U.S. 457. As a result, this doctrine has
also been referred to as the "Hunter/Seattle" doctrine. In the recent
case of Schuette v. BAMN, et. al. (2014) 134 S. Ct. 1623, the United
States Supreme Court has further interpreted the structural equal
protection doctrine, although the implications of this new
interpretation are not yet clear.  
   (c) Because the Hunter/Seattle doctrine was established as a part
of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, there has not been the need or occasion
for the California Supreme Court to determine whether the California
Constitution, through its own guarantee of equal protection of the
laws under Section 7 of Article I, also includes structural equal
protection.  
   (d) Because the California Constitution goes at least as far as
the United States Constitution in protecting rights and liberties,
and in some cases has been interpreted to go beyond the United States
Constitution in providing such protections, the guarantee of
structural equal protection that has been part of the United States
Constitution for nearly 50 years should appropriately be recognized
in the California Constitution. Specifically, the Legislature
believes that Section 7 of Article I of the California Constitution
provides broader protection of individual liberties and rights than
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, and these broader protections include the
structural equal protection doctrine, as interpreted prior to
Schuette v. BAMN.  
   (e) Independent of the guarantees afforded by the California
Constitution, the Legislature believes that the Hunter/Seattle
doctrine provides a prudent and salutary rule for statutory
protection against discriminatory statutes, ordinances, or other
state or local rules, regulations, or enactments. 
   SEC. 2.    Section 53.7 is added to the  
Civil Code   , to read:  
   53.7.  (a) A statute, ordinance, or other state or local rule,
regulation, or enactment shall not deny a minority group structural
equal protection of the law by altering, restructuring, or reordering
the policy decisionmaking process in a manner that burdens the
ability of members of the minority group to effect the enactment of
future legislation, solely with respect to a matter that inures
primarily to the benefit of, or is primarily of interest to, one or
more minority groups.
   (b) (1) A member of a minority group, as defined in paragraph (2),
may bring a civil action challenging the validity of a statute,
ordinance, or other state or local rule, regulation, or enactment,
pursuant to subdivision (a).
   (2) For purposes of this section, "minority group" means a group
of persons who share in common any race, ethnicity, nationality, or
sexual orientation.
   (c) A statute, ordinance, or other state or local rule,
regulation, or enactment shall be determined valid in an action
brought pursuant to this section, only upon a showing by the
government that the burden imposed by the statute, ordinance, or
other state or local rule, regulation or enactment satisfies both of
the following criteria:
   (1) The burden is necessary to serve a compelling government
interest.
   (2) The burden is no greater than necessary to serve the
compelling government interest.  
  SECTION 1.    Section 231.5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is amended to read:
   231.5.  A party may not use a peremptory challenge to remove a
prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective
juror is biased merely because of a characteristic listed or defined
in subdivision (a) of Section 11135 of the Government Code, or
similar grounds.