California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB645

Introduced
2/20/25  
Refer
3/5/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/9/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Engrossed
6/4/25  
Refer
4/9/25  
Refer
6/16/25  
Refer
7/3/25  
Report Pass
7/9/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Report Pass
8/29/25  

Caption

Juries: peremptory challenges.

Impact

The ramifications of SB 645 are significant as it aims to combat systemic bias in juries by limiting peremptory strikes based on discriminatory reasoning. By making these provisions applicable to civil cases, the bill seeks to provide broader protections against racial and other biases that could affect trial outcomes. It mandates that any claims regarding improper use of peremptory challenges necessitate parties to adhere to specific new procedures, including notifying the court of such claims, which aims to enhance accountability during jury selection processes.

Summary

Senate Bill 645, introduced by Senator Umberg, addresses issues related to peremptory challenges in jury selection. The bill aims to extend the current prohibition on the use of peremptory challenges based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation to civil cases indefinitely. Previously, this prohibition was set to expire on January 1, 2026, but the new legislation will ensure that these protections remain in place for all civil trials, except those explicitly exempted, such as civil rights violations or civil commitments.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB 645 appears to be mixed but leans towards a supportive stance from civil rights advocates and organizations concerned with fairness in the judicial system. Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary step to ensure fair representation in juries, while some critics suggest it could complicate legal proceedings and might lead to unintended consequences if implemented indiscriminately.

Contention

Despite the generally favorable reception among advocates for justice reform, the bill faces contention regarding its potential impact on jury selection timing and strategies. Opponents express concern that the extended limitations could hinder lawyers’ ability to select jurors that align with the specific needs of their cases. Furthermore, questions regarding how the courts will enforce these provisions, especially in civil cases, indicate a need for more clarity and understanding of the bill's practical implications in real-world scenarios.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB3039

Juries: peremptory challenges.

CA SB403

Discrimination on the basis of ancestry.

CA AB78

Grand juries.

CA SB883

Public Safety Omnibus.

CA AB1071

Teen dating violence prevention education: online information and resources.

CA AB2125

Judicial officers: disqualification.

CA SB331

Child custody: child abuse and safety.

CA AB3049

Dependency: court hearings.

CA SB1022

Enforcement of civil rights.

CA SB1137

Discrimination claims: combination of characteristics.

Similar Bills

CA AB3070

Juries: peremptory challenges.

CA SB758

Juries: peremptory challenges.

CA AB3039

Juries: peremptory challenges.

CA SB212

Prospective jurors for criminal trials: peremptory challenges: elimination.

MS SB2773

Juries; prohibit peremptory challenges based on certain factors.

MS SB2767

Juries; prohibit peremptory challenges based on certain factors.

MS SB2307

Juries; prohibit peremptory challenges based on certain factors.

MS SB2194

Juries; prohibit peremptory challenges based on certain factors.