A Texas-Sized Problem: How to Promote Diversity within Texas Juries 

    Under both the United States and Texas Constitutions, individuals are secured the right to trial by an impartial jury of their peers. However, one Houston area news outlet posits a grave concern: what if your peer can't make it to your trial because they can't afford the parking? Although free parking for jurors may ensure one peer's attendance, a larger systemic issue underlying lack of diversity in the typical Texas jury box stems from the way the Lone Star State assembles the pool of prospective jurors from the outset. 

    Texas state law determines the process for selecting potential jurors. This process begins when counties receive a list of names from the Secretary of State that consists of those individuals in the county who are registered to vote, hold a Texas driver's license, or hold a Texas identification card. From the list, citizens are randomly chosen and mailed a summons to report for jury service. While this randomized process is intended to yield representative cross-sections of county populations, some argue that the opposite effect is clear.  For example, in Travis County, racial diversity in juries has suffered a devastating blow. One year before prospective jury selection was randomized, 60 percent of grand jurors in Travis County criminal matters were white, 22 percent were Hispanic, and 18 percent were Black. The following year, grand juries were 69 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, only 8 percent Black.

Proposed Solutions 

    Importantly, the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Legislature must consider alternative avenues through which the Secretary of State may compile lists for counties. Although convenient, use of the list of Texans with driver's licenses to summon jurors is problematic because individuals who lack the financial resources to purchase a vehicle have little incentive to obtain a driver's license. Furthermore, some young populations in Texas's urban centers choose to use public transit and ride share services rather than personal vehicles out of convenience and environmental concerns. While voter registration lists are updated more frequently than driver's license records and may produce fewer no-shows, they often tend to exclude the same young, urban populations because of the affirmative initiative required to register to vote in the first place. I propose that Texas officials investigate records of government benefits offices, taxing authorities, and other nontraditional sources of identification from which to draw jury pools. This relatively inexpensive solution will help ensure that this state uses the best feasible method of summoning individuals to serve.

    Additionally, counties should consider optimizing the human aspects of jury service. Here, conclusions reached by California's Task Force on Jury System Improvements are instructive and include increasing juror pay, reducing costs associated with service (such as parking and transportation fees), implementing mechanisms to address juror complaints, educating court staff on juror treatment, and providing reimbursements for childcare costs incurred as a result of jury service. (California Task Force Final Report 2 at 3-4, 17, 20-21; https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tfjsi_final.pdf). Together, serious consideration of these possible solutions will ensure that diverse, attentive, and impartial Texans sit on the juries of our courts.