The House voted to send back to committee a bill meant to bring the state's procedure on seating deaf jurors into compliance with federal law.
State law has been contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act because it says deaf jurors cannot be seated as jurors. In practice, the Administrative Office of the Courts has advised judges and other court officials to allow deaf people to remain in jury pools and to have an interpreter assigned to them.
Opponents of the bill, primary lawyers, have expressed concern that the bill could force lawyers to seat a deaf juror.
"if you're going to be in court and you're going to have your case heard, you want to make sure you're being heard," said Rep. Bill Faison, an Orange County Democrat.
Faison said his concern was over whether the change would force a lawyer to use one of their limited supply of peremptory challenges that allow a lawyer to reject a juror for any reason.
Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat, said opponents were making much out of a bill that needed to pass.
"This is simply a conforming change that we're required to do since our state has been out of compliance and illegal under the ADA," Glazier said.
More after the jump.
—————
Rep. Ronnie Sutton, a Pembroke Democrat, who previously said the bill was an example of political correctness gone too far, said Tuesday that he objected because the bill didn't provide enough guidance for court officials on how to handle such situations.
"If we're going to have a bill, let's have a bill correctly and have the best bill and give guidance to the court system," Sutton said.
The House sent the bill back to a committee on a vote of 65-48. Faison promised the bill would be back on the calendar quickly.
"This is not to kill the bill," Faison said.
Julia Leggett, a lobbyist for the Arc of North Carolina, which advocates for people with disabilities, said the issue before the House was very simple.
"We need to pass this bill to clean up our state to come into compliance with what is the law in 50 states," she said.
Leggett said some of the comments made during the debate were disappointing.
"As a disability rights advocate, it does reveal there are still a lot of misconceptions about what people with disabilities can achieve in this nation," Leggett said.
Blog RSS feed
Re: House not ready for deaf jurors
I can't believe, we in NC, are so far behind the times that we can not allow persons with disabilities to become jurors. Those in the legislature that are arguing to not have deaf jurors are the same ones that are running this state into the ground. I was born in SC and have a deaf sister two years younger than myself. In the late 60's she was put into a room at school with all severely mentally disabled students and received no education. So, when my father was asked to start up a new Engineering office here in Raleigh in the early 70's, he jumped at it. The services for deaf students were much better here and my sister was able to go to a regular public school in Cary and receive a good education, with special services for deaf students. She has battled this kind of thing her whole life, even being turned down to be a lifeguard. Well, a few years later she set 7 world records for the deaf in swimming. Tell me she wouldn't have made a great lifeguard. She was more observant than half my fellow lifeguards I worked with at the time.
We have got to get on the band wagon and start accepting that deaf persons are just as capable, if not more capable at some things, than those of us that can hear. Below is a bill that was passed long ago in SC to allow deaf jurors. Are we further behind than SC? That's scary!!
TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-810, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REASONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JURORS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO IS BLIND, HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRED, OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED MAY NOT BE DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AS A JUROR OR BE EXCLUDED FROM A JURY LIST OR JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF THESE HANDICAPS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-27-110, RELATING TO INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INTERPRETER BE PROVIDED WHEN A DEAF PERSON IS A JUROR AND PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR THE USE OF AN INTERPRETER WHEN USED TO ASSIST A DEAF JUROR.