Meeting Archives: August 12, 2026

August 12, 2026

Index

To go to a specific meeting material, click one of the links below to be taken to where the text begins on this page.

Agenda
Prior Meeting Minutes
Oregon's Employment Related Statutes
Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions (updated)

Agenda

Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service

Meeting # 7: Public Education

August 12, 2026

Roll Call and Verification of Quorum

Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, Oregon Judicial Department (OJD)

Ratify Prior Meeting Minutes

Chair McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD

Employment Related Issues

Group Discussion

Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions

Chair McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD

Where Are We Going From Here

Chair McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD

Public Comment

Materials

Prior Meeting Minutes
Oregon's Employment Related Statutes

General Employment Protections - ORS 10.090
Employment Protections Re: Insurance Coverage - ORS 10.092
Unemployment Administrative Rules & Enabling Statute - OAR 471-030-0120; ORS 657.155(1)(c)

Illinois Law Re: Not Having to Work Night Shifts

Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB 4844 (opens link to external website)

California Employer Resources

Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions (updated) (opens PDF)
Written Public Comment (if any)

Meeting Materials

Draft - Meeting Minutes (to be voted on at the 8/12/26 meeting)

Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service

Date: July 14, 2026

Time: 11:30am-1:00pm

Location: Virtual via WebEx Webinar

Members in Attendance: Derek Sangston, Chair Kimberly McCullough, Tim Dooley, Honorable Matthew Shirtcliff, Representative Tom Andersen, Royce Williams, Kia Tolbert, Nansi López, Keren Farkas, Honorable Tucker Rossetto, Representative Wallan

Members Not in Attendance: Senator James Manning, Jr., Honorable Chanpone Sinlapasai, Bryan Brock, Senator Kim Thatcher

Quorum: Yes (8)

Ratify Prior Meeting Minutes

Chair McCullough noted that while Bryan Brock is no longer the executive director of ODAA, he will continue serving on the task force for a short amount of time until the member reappointment process for his replacement is complete
Chair McCullough asked if anyone had objections to ratifying the June 8, 2026, meeting minutes

Tolbert asked to clarify in the notes that the reference to “…especially in criminal cases, many of the parties Tolbert represents are unhoused individuals” be changed to “especially in criminal cases, many of the clients represented are unhoused individuals”

Chair McCullough requested that change be made to the minutes and asked, with that, if anyone had any objections to ratifying them

There were no objections, so Chair McCullough noted they are ratified

Online Deferrals and Excusals

Chair McCullough noted there was a question from the last meeting about when the process for deferrals and excusals is available

There was also a suggestion about making sure that that process is available online

Harvis provided an overview of the online process for excusals and deferrals and reviewed the juror questionnaire

When a person receives a summons they can respond or request excusals/deferrals by coming in-person to the court, calling, sending an email, or using the online juror response portal (most common)

Courts send out jury summons four to six weeks before service to give folks time to respond and account for delays in the mail

You can request an excusal or deferral up to 5:00 p.m. the day before the first day of service (some counties may cut it off a little sooner depending on staff hours)
The jury summons will have a QR code or link that will generally take you to the county’s jury service hub, which includes the summons response form

Harvis walked the group through opening and completing the form

Eligibility questions will still be asked even if a person is trying to ask for an excusal or deferral
There are several questions related to juror compensation

In order to receive your wages, must you decline juror pay?
How would you like to receive eligible reimbursement?

Would you like to waive any of that to the Jury Improvement Fund?

How you plan on getting to jury service (indicates potential mileage/public transport reimbursement)

Asks juror for phone number and email, so courts can provide alerts and communications regarding jury service
Courts can choose to include supplemental questions

There are buttons on the main page for excusal and deferral requests

Some courts may require additional documentation to support excusals
When requesting a deferral, the court may allow for good cause a first time deferral and may allow a second one but there are more restrictions
You can always check your service status, reporting time/location, directions to court, edit your questionnaire, print a letter of your service, and check on the status of an excusal request

Representative Andersen asked if there is a penalty for someone who refuses to respond to a summons?

When someone doesn’t respond, we send a reminder closer to the reporting date

No Oregon courts hold contempt cases for failures to respond, some will do a failure to appear if it’s a special trial but that’s rare (mostly happens if a seated juror leaves for lunch and doesn’t come back)

López asked how we verify the Deferral-Transportation reason? Are there any deferral reasons pertaining to personal reasons such as holidays?

Harvis replied it is up to the court to decide how to handle hardship/inconvenience reasons and whether they want verification for it

We generally try to see if it could be a deferral instead of an excusal, so that they can still serve later at a better time rather than missing out on the opportunity altogether
Courts have discretion and it’s generally up to the judge(s) reviewing the request

Chair McCullough asked if the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) has guidelines for excusal requests due to culturally significant holidays

Harvis replied there are statewide guidelines which recommend a deferral over an excusal, so they still have access to serve later

We may ask questions to clarify if it is a case of that specific date(s) not being doable

Harvis noted that we try to look at the larger statute, which says no one shall be denied the right to jury service for any reason based on one of the cognizable groups (e.g., religion)

Dooley asked how the supplemental question part of the jury summons works? Are they done by the parties in each case and then added in?

Harvis replied that there are two kinds of supplemental questionnaires:

Standard: if a court has agreed with their local jurisdiction that they’re going to have a set number of supplemental questions for all petit cases, then OJD will manually build those into the questionnaire for that court
Case-Specific: We make a call with the litigants and the judge on if it’s worth doing the manual entry into the questionnaire/portal or if it’s best to ask those questions in person

Dooley asked why, if the questions are for voir dire, does each judicial district do it differently?

Harvis replied it’s because some courts don’t feel they need to use a supplemental questionnaire, while others feel they do

It's all up to preference, but OJD created some templates, for those who do want to use them, to help have some consistency, but OJD doesn’t require use of them

Tolbert asked if the idea was that jurors must sign up for the online portal in advance of service? How many people don’t or are unable to?

Harvis replied that we see that most people are finding the online portal to be a useful resource for potential jurors and a majority respond through the portal

Of those who reply over the phone, it’s mostly people who are 70 years of age or older

Judge Shirtcliff noted that the issues on trials are so vast and different that it’s hard to create general supplemental questions in the bigger questionnaire, which is why his court does not currently use supplemental questions

Harvis noted she has seen case-specific supplemental questions come with summaries of the case and give more context than the more general supplemental questions

López asked if, aside from the 70 years of age or older group, if OJD tracks who’s calling with questions? What about the people who don’t have access to internet?

Harvis replied that the information OJD collects is anecdotal

We know how an excusal request was collected (phone, web, in-person) and what the request was

Across the state, the reason of being 70+ years old is the most common reason
For phone calls, the second most common reason is medical (people tend to want to explain and offer more information)
Requests due to being a student, not having transportation, or requests marked as “Other” reason, we have to rely more on the anecdotal emails and information we get, though we do try to have courts track those things, if possible

Chair McCullough noted that the word “deferral” may not be something everyone knows/understands

She suggested postponement may be easier to understand and that saying “postponement/deferral” in the online portal may be clearer and easier to understand

Harvis noted that in the main hub they did remove deferral and say “reschedule service” instead and the internal system uses “postponement” and the different uses can sometimes cause some confusion as well when they’re not consistent

Chair McCullough asked that further questions around the online portal and juror response process be sent to her and that she will send them to Harvis

Employment Related Issues

This discussion will be moved to the next meeting

Juror Compensation Continued

As of this morning, the Illinois law requiring employers to pay for compensation is awaiting Governor signature (has been with the Governor since June 18, 2026)
If the Task Force recommended a policy requiring the state to pay jurors more and have them pay $50/day for all days, it would cost $9.8 million per biennium in addition to what we are already paying

If we also increased Oregon’s mileage rate to the federal mileage rate, that would cost $3.2 million per biennium
Chair McCullough asked members to let her know if there are other numbers they’d like to see
Representative Andersen asked what percentage of an increase would the above be compared to what we’re currently paying?

Chair McCullough noted that in the 2025 biennium Oregon paid $3.5 million for juror compensation

Current per diem rate is $10/day for the first two days and $25/day for each additional day

López asked if the $13 million we’re looking at if juror pay increased to $50/day includes employers that would pay for jury duty?

Chair McCullough replied that the state pays jurors directly the per diem and then mileage and the $13 million would include increasing the per diem to $50/day and increasing the mileage pay
Chair McCullough noted that if employers pay juror compensation, then the state does not, and if the employer doesn’t pay but the person waives their jury service then the state still pays but the money goes into the Jury Improvement Fund

Judge Rossetto noted that the increase to $13 million is so high because juror compensation hasn’t been updated since 2002, so that’s many years of inflation and wage increases that haven’t been accounted for

Chair McCullough agreed and briefly reviewed the juror compensation and mileage information from the June 8th meetings’ historical juror wage presentation

Dooley asked if we have looked at what those juror compensation/mileage increases would be for municipal and justice court costs?

Chair McCullough replied that we would need to do some additional work looking into that and that she may ask Judge Rossetto to help with those information requests

The number of jury trials in municipal and justice courts is much lower than in circuit courts
Maybe we could do a survey or sampling of courts to determine how much compensation they are paying currently?
We will circle back and get some numbers on this

Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions

A list of barriers and potential policy solutions was included in the meeting materials

One thing not included in the compensation section was increasing mileage to the federal or DAS reimbursement rate
We will continue updating the document and including it with the meeting materials

Representative Andersen noted he is interested in cost-sharing models, particularly in discussing the idea of having parties contribute to paying jurors fees

We already have a high barrier to getting to court with the cost and filing fees, so it seems unfair to impose more costs for people to get access to justice

Does not like this option

Chair McCullough agreed that that could be a challenge

She noted that some parties in civil cases are business entities with money, but some are people who don’t even have an attorney, it’s a big range, and many civil cases are debt collection, landlord/tenant, etc. cases

Representative Andersen suggested that maybe there could be a system where having to contribute to juror costs is dependent on what the party is suing for (i.e., a few thousand dollars in back rent vs. $2 million in corporate litigation)

Chair McCullough noted that, with the idea of a cost-sharing model with attorney bar dues, it’s important to note that there is a wide range in attorney incomes which could make cost sharing with that a hardship for individuals
Tolbert asked if there is a cap of how much we are willing to spend on juror compensation? That would help us understand which model may work best to recommend

She noted, regardless of what the cap may be, juror compensation based on each juror’s income seems most amicable/fair

There could be a cap for those with very high incomes
Chair McCullough asked if that means someone with a lower income would receive more pay than someone with a higher income and how a system of determining pay based on income would work?

Chair McCullough noted that determining someone’s income can take a lot of work which creates an administrative burden

Morgan Novitt from the National Center for State Courts noted that they can compile a list of states that determine juror compensation based on income

San Francisco did a program increasing juror pay for those with low to moderate income

Novitt will send the link to that to Chair McCullough

We want to see how they administered it and what the outcome was

Chair McCullough noted that the cap of where we’re willing to spend to increase jury compensation is a difficult question to answer since it’s mostly up to the legislature and those in charge of the budget

Legislators that are on this Task Force and those members that are lobbyists may have some insight on if there is appetite for increasing juror compensation at the state level

Dooley asked Sangston what Oregon Business and Industry’s (OBI’s) view is on some model involving employer-based compensation? (e.g., employer pays, employer pays a portion, etc.)

Sangston noted that OBI wasn’t strongly in favor of it since not all employers are rich, and many are struggling throughout the state

OBI would likely oppose the idea that employers be required to pay for leave or pay for all or part of juror compensation

Chair McCullough asked about the idea of tax credits for employers? It would have a revenue impact, but a lower one than paying for juror compensation. Could that encourage more employers to be willing to pay for juror compensation?

Sangston replied that while it could be something good to offer employers, he thought that some of the employers that do offer jury leave would find a tax credit burdensome, particularly smaller employers who don’t have a tax department and don’t have the ability to suddenly have to increase their bookkeeping and record keeping on employees that are out on jury leave

About 80% of employers are small employers with 50, or less, employees

López noted that, under public education, she wanted to add that we want to make sure when talking about community outreach that we think about the diversity of our communities

We should ensure we’re hitting the communities we typically don’t think about in these spaces, especially communities of color, to make sure people understand this process and are included in it
López noted her appreciation for the trauma and anxiety considerations being included in the Task Force’s list
López noted, for the accessibility consideration, Lopez noted that the juror process is limited for those who are non-English speakers

Would accessibility mean opening the process to those who are non-English speakers?
Chair McCullough replied that in Oregon people have to have a certain level of English proficiency to serve on a jury, she found one state that provides translation service for those who don’t speak English to serve on a jury

They found under their constitution that folks had a right to serve on a jury regardless of language spoken
There has been legislation in Oregon before regarding providing translation services for jurors, but it didn’t make it through before due to the cost

Chair McCullough noted that we can dive into the topics of trauma/anxiety, accessibility, and public education more at future meetings

Tolbert noted, on employers sharing juror costs, that being an employer is expensive

For large corporations or franchises, it may not have as much of an impact as on family-owned businesses and businesses in rural counties
Seems problematic because it would take away the responsibility of the government to do their part and force it on employers

Where We Are Going From Here

Next meeting (8/12): Discuss employment-related issues we didn’t get to today
The following meeting (9/16): Trauma to jurors (someone from the Multnomah District Attorney’s office will speak)
The following meeting (9/29): Public education
If anyone has any questions, suggestions, or resources they’d like to share, please send them to Chair McCullough

Chair McCullough will look at the document Tolbert sent her

Chair McCullough will continue updating the barriers/policies document

Public Comment

None

Next Meeting

Date: August 12, 2026
Time: 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
Via: Webex Webinar

Oregon's Employment Related Statutes

Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service

Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules

Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 10 (opens link to external website)

General Provisions

ORS 10.090 Prohibited acts by employers against jurors; notice to jurors; remedy for violations.

(1) An employer commits an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A if the employer discharges, threatens to discharge, intimidates or coerces any employee by reason of the employee’s service or scheduled service as a juror on a grand jury, trial jury or jury of inquest.
(2) employer may not require that an employee use vacation leave, sick leave or annual leave for time spent by the employee in responding to a summons for jury duty, and the employer shall allow the employee to take leave without pay for time spent by the employee in responding to a summons for jury duty.
(3) section may not be construed to alter or affect an employer’s policies or agreements with employees concerning employees’ wages during times when an employee serves or is scheduled to serve as a juror.
(4) summoning jurors, the person whose duty it is under the law to summon shall notify each juror of the juror’s rights under this section.
(5) employee who alleges a violation of subsection (1) of this section may bring a civil action under ORS 659A.885 or may file a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in the manner provided by ORS 659A.820.

ORS 10.092 Insurance coverage for employee during jury service; unlawful employment practice.

(1) An employer who employs 10 or more persons commits an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A if:

(a) The employer ceases to provide health, disability, life or other insurance coverage for an employee during times when the employee serves or is scheduled to serve as a juror; and
(b) The employee elected to have coverage continued while the employee served or was scheduled to serve as a juror, and the employee provided notice of that election to the employer in compliance with the employer’s policy for notification.

(2) Notwithstanding ORS 652.610 (3), if, following an election described in subsection (1) of this section, an employer is required or elects to pay any part of the costs of providing health, disability, life or other insurance coverage for the employee that should have been paid by the employee, the employer may deduct from the employee’s pay such amounts upon the employee’s return to work until the amount the employer advanced toward the payments is paid. The total amount deducted for insurance under this subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the employee’s gross pay each pay period.
(3) Notwithstanding ORS 652.610 (3), if the employer pays any part of the costs of providing health, disability, life or other insurance coverage for an employee under subsection (2) of this section, and the employee ceases to work for the employer before the total amount the employer advanced toward the payments is paid, the employer may deduct the remaining amounts from any amounts owed by the employer to the employee or may seek to recover those amounts by any other legal means.
(4) An employee who alleges a violation of this section may bring a civil action under ORS 659A.885 or may file a complaint with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries in the manner provided by ORS 659A.820.

Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 657 (opens link to external website)

Benefits and Claims (Generally)

ORS 657.155 Benefit eligibility conditions; rules.

(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the Director of the Employment Department finds that:

(a) The individual has registered for work at and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in accordance with such rules as the director may prescribe. However, the director may, by rule, waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subsection as to individuals attached to regular jobs and as to such other types of cases or situations with respect to which the director finds that compliance with such requirements would be oppressive, or would be inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; provided, that no such rule conflicts with ORS 657.255.
(b) The individual has made a claim for benefits with respect to such week in accordance with ORS 657.260.
(c) The individual is able to work, is available for work, and is actively seeking and unable to obtain suitable work. No individual participating in a community work and training program, as defined in ORS 411.855, shall, solely by reason thereof, be unavailable for work within the meaning of this section.
(d) The individual has been unemployed for a waiting period of one week, unless the Governor has waived the required waiting period as provided in ORS 401.186.
(e) The individual is not disqualified from benefits or ineligible for benefits under any other section of this chapter.
(f) The individual is qualified for benefits under ORS 657.150.

(a) An individual who leaves the individual’s normal labor market area for the major portion of any week is presumed to be unavailable for work within the meaning of this section.
(b) The presumption described in paragraph (a) of this subsection may be overcome if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the director that the individual:

(A) Has conducted a bona fide search for work and has been reasonably accessible to suitable work in the labor market area in which the individual spent the major portion of the week to which the presumption applies; or
(B) Was required to be outside the individual’s normal labor market area to apply for suitable employment within the individual’s normal labor market.

(3) The director shall either promptly allow credit or pay benefits for any week for which benefits are claimed or promptly give notice of denial thereof in the manner provided in ORS 657.267 and 657.268.

Oregon Administrative Rules 471-030-0120 (opens link to external website)

Unemployment Insurance Benefits and Claims

471-030-0120 Jury Duty

For purposes of ORS 657.155(1)(c), an individual who is in all respects otherwise eligible for unemployment insurance benefits shall not be denied benefits solely by reason of serving on jury duty provided:

(1) The individual does not miss an opportunity to perform suitable work as a result of jury duty; and
(2) The individual actively sought work during the hours and days of the week in which the individual was not engaged in serving on jury duty.

Overview of Barriers and Potential Policy Solutions (updated)

Barriers to Jury Service and Policy Options

For August 12, 2026, Meeting

Barriers

Financial burden and low compensation
Transportation and parking
Employment and educational responsibilities
Loss of insurance coverage
Unemployment rules
Caregiving costs and responsibilities (children and other dependents)
Health issues
Accessibility (physical, language, etc.)
Trauma and anxiety triggered by the facts of the case and/or case type
Juror privacy and safety
Longer terms of service/multi-day trials
Lack of inclusion in jury source lists (particularly for unhoused individuals)
Lack of understanding and public education about:

The rights, roles, and expectations for jurors
The importance of jury service

Negative court and jury experiences

Long wait times at the court when called in for service
Other negative experiences

Psychological/behavioral barriers

Limited bandwidth
Lack of certainty about process and length of service
Fear/distrust of the court system
Forgetting

Peremptory challenges & discrimination
Criminal convictions
Statutory eligibility (conviction eligibility, citizenship, age, etc.) and excusal/deferral criteria

Policy Options

Compensation

Increase rate of compensation per day paid by the State and/or cities/counties:

Flat rate for all days of service
Graduated rate that increases after 2 days of service
Increased rate for lengthy trials (after X days of service)
Increased rate for grand jury service
Provide for ongoing increases based on Consumer Price Index, local income rates, or some other metric

Tier juror compensation based on income
Employer pays regular rate of pay for days serving jury duty

Could be made applicable only to employers of X or more employees

Tax credit for employers who pay employees while they attend jury service
Cost-sharing models

Require parties in civil cases to contribute toward the cost of paying juror fees
Add a fee to attorney bar dues to help pay juror fees
Employer pays a portion of juror fees and state pays a portion

Increase filing fees to raise funds for juror compensation
New Addition: Increase mileage reimbursement to federal/DAS rate
Reimburse jurors for parking expenses unless free parking is provided by the court
Create a stipend for child/dependent care expenses
Make improvements to the extraordinary expenses program to make it more accessible

Provide more information to jurors about the existence of the program
Create clearer guidelines for what is reimbursable through the program (e.g., dependent care, lodging for jurors when travel is long/difficult/unsafe)
Simplify the procedures for obtaining funds through the program

Consider special circumstance funds, like a Lengthy Trial Fund
Improve payment methods so jurors receive compensation faster
Implement a pilot program in X counties to study the impact of increased compensation on response and excusal rates
Data collection and analysis requirement tied to any increase in compensation to study how much of an impact it has on response and excusal rates

Transportation

Provide a court shuttle:

In counties that don’t have adequate public transportation
For jurors with physical disabilities that make travel difficult

Agreements between courts and public transport services to allow jurors to use their summons as a bus pass
Agreements between courts and businesses for using parking lots that are closer to the court and/or to use summons as a parking pass
Consider staggered reporting times or delayed starts for families with limited transportation or children in school (i.e. single car family, school drop off and pick up)

Public Education

Advertisements/public service announcements (print, radio, TV)
Short educational videos and other online collateral to be used on OJD’s website, partner websites, social media
Provide educational materials (posters, pamphlets, videos, lesson plans) to schools and educators

High school, college, educational associations

Topics for all of the above:

Importance of jury service
Likelihood of short length of service
What to expect when serving on a jury

Mock jury trial programs, particularly for youth
Ensure online information linked to on summons includes a typical agenda (run of the day) so jurors know what to expect
Collaborate with BOLI on education for employers/employees
Revamp juror orientation video (last updated in 2018)
Judges in the classroom; increase courthouse tours/experiences and jury simulations
Community outreach – bring court professionals to community areas (i.e. elder care facilities to speak on juror scams, community centers to speak about civic education, library or public spaces for open dialogues)

Employment protections

Add provision to employment protections that states that employees are not required to work night shift on the same day they have jury service (from Illinois law)
Strengthen protections relate to health insurance coverage continuity during jury service:

Reduce or eliminate the threshold number of employees before the protections kick in
Make it clear that hours spent serving on jury duty must count toward any minimum number of hours people have to work to get health insurance coverage during the time period that includes jury service
Remove the requirement that jurors “elect” to keep insurance coverage and notify their employer of the election in compliance with the employer’s policy, replacing it with a requirement that the employee simply notify the employer that they have been called for jury service
New Addition: Replace "Does this mean the employer can require a person to pay for the cost of "maintaining insurance during jury service?" with "Explore whether a change is needed to the provisions that allow an employer to recover the cost of insurance "that should have been paid by the employee"

Allow a person to obtain unemployment insurance during jury duty, even if they miss an opportunity to perform suitable work

Require waiver of juror fee if a person obtains unemployment insurance or allow a person to obtain both

Create sample juror leave policies for employers

Put them on the Oregon Judicial Department’s website and/or BOLI’s jury information website

Trauma/Anxiety

Provide online juror qualification questionnaires in advance of going to court to determine if a particular case or case type may be triggering or traumatic for a given potential juror
Protect jurors’ rights during jury selection and offer questioning alternatives for privacy/safety
For grand jurors and jurors in cases (civil and criminal) involving violence and sexual assault:

Provide resource lists
Provide post-venire and pre-trial training for jurors on self-care, secondary trauma and/or trauma-informed deliberation
Provide post-trial debrief
Provide access to post-jury duty counseling and/or facilitated group sessions

Training for judges and/or attorneys on trauma-informed trial practices

Accessibility

Provide language translation for people who don’t speak English as a first language and enact a statute similar to ORS 10.115 (interpreters for individuals with disabilities) that would allow language interpreters to be present for jury deliberations

Logistical changes

Reduce time people spend waiting
Stagger juror panel sign-ins to avoid long security/check-in lines
Utilize technology to keep people from lengthy wait periods
Provide an option to let the court know if you can only attend a one-day trial
Implement new Uniform Trial Court Rules so the court knows further in advance which cases will need jurors
Work towards the goal of one-day/one trial across counties – reduce separate orientation days
Remote juror orientation, questionnaires and/or jury selection
Increase trial certainty and set stronger restrictions for Call Hearings.

Miscellaneous

Change “master jury list” to “primary jury list” or something similar
Collect post-jury duty feedback to identify additional areas that may be improved
Use additional source lists (e.g., to try to include people who are unhoused)
Conduct a source list evaluation to review for accuracy and validity and identify need or potential of other source lists
Conduct a review of the USPS mailing accuracy and validity, including the rates of Oregonians utilizing the National Change of Address program (related to undeliverable rates)
Reduce or eliminate peremptory challenges
Special considerations for trials (trials with people in custody, self-represented/pro se litigants. Lengthy or high-profile trials)
Educate communities on jury scams, ensure protections to jurors whenever possible