additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan; August 7, 2010
HB 1500, even though it had an interesting lineup of sponsors, went over like a lead balloon. RSA 500:11 says, that eligible citizens "may be excused from jury service by the court only upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity, or for any other cause that the court deems appropriate.
The bill would have made a fairly minor change to the law regarding being excused from jury duty. It merely clarified the term "undue hardship" by stating that this "includes a situation in which jury service requires a person who has legal custody of a child under 13 years of age to leave the child without adequate supervision." The bill was inspired by the case of a mother who was home-schooling a special needs child and didn't believe that she could find anyone to care for the child when she was called for jury duty. (She had actually been called in 2009, and she had in fact managed to get her jury duty postponed until some time in 2010. But, she didn't expect her situation to be any different at the later point in time.)
The majority of the House Judiciary Committee felt the bill was unnecessary. Three members of the committee (including the infamous Nancy Elliott) liked the bill, but there was no floor debate and the bill died on a voice vote.
Here is my written testimony, for the hearing on January 7, 2010:
Testimony in Favor of HB1500
January 7, 2010
Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford District 7)
This bill is a simple pro-family bill: it eliminates a conflict between a parent's role as a parent and a citizen's role as a citizen. If there is no adequate child care available, the parent is excused from jury duty.
The existing law (RSA 500:A-11) already states: "upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, public necessity or for any other cause that the court deems appropriate." In an ideal world, this bill would be unnecessary. Having to leave a young child uncared-for is an undue hardship and an extreme inconvenience. Sadly, however, some families have had problems with judges who take an overly narrow view of RSA 500:A-11. Hence this bill is needed to clarify the issue of how to handle parents who are unable to find adequate child care.
There may be some fears that this new law, if passed, could be abused. However, the vast majority of New Hampshire's citizens take their duties seriously and will make child care arrangements and will report for jury duty. This bill only directly effects families with special circumstances who sincerely cannot find adequate child care to enable a parent to report for jury duty. Also, if the court finds that adequate child care is in fact available, it can deny the request for an excuse; the court can also reschedule the parent for a different time.
As a member of the House Election Law Committee, I support this bill because it eliminates one of the most common reasons why citizens fail to register to vote. Many people are afraid that they may be called for jury duty if they register to vote. This is an unfounded fear, since jury duty is an infrequent event, and since long jury trials are even rarer— and also since jury duty is a privilege. Moreover, the list from which jurors are selected includes all citizens, not just registered voters. Unfounded fears are still real fears, however, and this bill goes a long way to eliminating a common fear.
See Also: