‘The loudest advocates are those whom it truly helps: felons too lazy to apply for jury rights through existing mechanisms, who have committed too many crimes to be eligible…and the attorneys who represent them.’

By Hannah E. Meyers, Director & Fellow | The Manhattan Institute

Before ending its session this year, the state Legislature passed the Jury of Our Peers Act; it’s critical that Gov. Hochul veto it.

The bill would repeal New York’s ban on felons serving on juries — going far beyond the current administrative process that allows New Yorkers with a single felony conviction to get their jury-service-eligibility restored.

The bill’s sponsors, state Sen. Cordell Cleare and Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, insist this would benefit black New Yorkers by shifting the racial composition of juries.

But in reality, the bill’s most consequential result would be to tilt the scales of justice yet further toward criminals.

Potential jurors who are convicted felons would still be unlikely to serve; instead, prosecutors would be forced to use some of their limited number of peremptory challenges during jury selection to reject them.

After all, would an assistant district attorney allow a gang member with multiple convictions to adjudicate a gang assault?

Restoring felons’ jury-service rights would thus create another advantage for defense attorneys, whose own peremptory challenges would remain undiminished.

Further, equating convicted felons with black citizens is misguided and, bluntly, racist.

Advocating in Albany, New York Civil Liberties Union executive Perry Grossman claimed, “For decades . . . our state’s jury ban has shut thousands of black New Yorkers out of civic engagement, denying people of color the ability to fully participate in our state’s democratic process.”

But elevating black felons isn’t a boon to the communities they prey upon.

Indeed, violent crime in New York City is predominantly intra-racial: Last year, 57.1% of murder victims and 57.0% of murder suspects were black.

Similarly, 65.6% of shooting victims were black, as were 65.6% of shooting suspects.

The bill’s sponsors argue that the jury service ban “helps perpetuate the cycle of mass incarceration that ensnares thousands every year,” and that “our criminal system is stacked against . . . low-income Black people.”

But why would a jury of exclusively law-abiding citizens be more likely to penalize innocent black defendants?

Anyone called for jury duty can attest to its melting-pot mix of a city’s racial and socioeconomic pool.

By insisting that the status quo “robs all of us of our right to a jury of our peers,” Aubry and Cleare are implying that felons are definitionally blacks’ peers.

Hannah E. Meyers is a fellow and director of policing and public safety at the Manhattan Institute. Her writing has appeared in numerous publications including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Tablet, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The NY Daily News, and City Journal.

She provides frequent commentary for TV, radio, and podcasts, including CNN and Fox News. She has been a guest speaker at Columbia University, Northwestern Law School, Hebrew University, and Hunter College, among other institutions. She is an appointed member of the New York State Domestic Terrorism Task Force.