Skip to main content

Oregon State Flag An official website of the State of Oregon »

Oregon Judicial Department Logo

Meeting Archives: June 8, 2026

June 8, 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

Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service

Meeting #5: High-Level Overview of Barriers and Potential Solutions; Juror Compensation

June 8, 2026

Roll Call and Verification of Quorum
  • Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, Oregon Judicial Department (OJD)
Ratify Prior Meeting Minutes
  • Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
High-Level Overview to Understand the Universe of Potential Barriers
  • Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
Brainstorm Policy Ideas for Overcoming Barriers
  • Group Discussion
Juror Compensation
  • Review Juror Compensation
    • Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
  • What It Would Cost to Increase Compensation
    • Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
  • National Landscape
    • Jawwaad Johnson, Director of the Center for Jury Studies & Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts
    • Miriam Hamilton, Senior Court Research Analyst, National Center for State Courts
  • General Discussion
Where We Are Going from Here
  • Chair Kimberly McCullough, Senior Counsel for Government Relations, OJD
Public Comment
Meeting Materials

Meeting Materials

Prior Meeting Minutes

Draft - Meeting Minutes (to be voted on at the 6/8/26 meeting)
Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service
Date: May 1, 2026
Time: 3:00-4:30pm
Location: Virtual via WebEx Webinar
Members in Attendance: Derek Sangston, Chair Kimberly McCullough, Honorable Tucker Rossetto, Representative Kim Wallan, Tim Dooley, Honorable Matthew Shirtcliff, Senator James Manning, Jr., Representative Tom Andersen, Honorable Chanpone Sinlapasai, Royce Williams, Kia Tolbert
Members Not in Attendance: Senator Kim Thatcher, Bryan Brock, Nansi López, Keren Farkas
Quorum: Yes (7)
Ratify Meeting Minutes
  • Two voting members joined late, so voting was moved to later when a quorum was present
Data about Circuit Courts
  • Molly Harvis, Statewide Jury Coordinator for the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) completed her presentation on data in circuit courts from the previous meeting
    • OJD paid roughly $1.8 million to 105,548 jurors in 2025 (mostly per diem, followed by mileage reimbursement, followed by public transport reimbursement)
    • Waived juror funds go to the Juror Access and Experience Improvement Fund and must be used for improvement of access to jury service or improvement of the juror experience
      • Approximately $580,000 was waived in 2025
    • Reviewed a map showing the average number of days jurors served in 2025 by county and a chart showing the average juror pay in each county
    • Compared the minimum wage earned in non-urban, standard, and Portland metro counties to how much jurors are paid
      • If jurors only receive per diem, only 7.7-8.9% of their daily pay is covered, which is a significant hardship for many
    • The Oregon transportation reimbursement rate is $0.20/mile compared to the federal $0.725/mile
      • In previous legislative sessions, there have been bills requesting parity with the federal rate, but they have not passed
    • Reviewed a map of the average age of jurors across Oregon counties
      • The average age is 47.05 years, with the high in Gilliam County at 56.09 and the low in Marion County at 45.75
        • There could be skewing based on factors such as a county having a university, a larger military presence, an aging community, etc.
      • OJD currently collects information on postal code and juror age to know who meets the 70 years of age or older statutory excusal and who is under 18 years of age and therefore cannot serve
        • OJD does not collect any other juror demographic data
          • The Oregon Supreme Court Council on Inclusion & Fairness (OSCCIF) Jury Subcommittee created a report requesting a rule be made to collect juror demographic data
            • The report is being reviewed by the Chief Justice
            • There is also a survey drafted that would collect some of this data, it’s just waiting on approval
    • For any follow-up questions or data requests, please reach out to Kimberly McCullough
  • Representative Andersen asked if, when looking at the average wages for jurors, that took into account people who don’t receive wages to begin with? (e.g., stay-at-home parent)
    • Harvis replied that OJD collects information on those who are required to say they can’t receive the per diem in order to receive their wages, no other wage information is collected
  • Judge Sinlapasai asked, in regard to the data for each county, does the number of people who have served in juries count service to the point where they’ve actually come in and gone through voir dire, or does it include anyone who checks in and are dismissed and/or people discharged because trial isn’t moving forward?
    • Harvis replied that OJD tracks the total number of those summoned and the reasons they can’t serve, information about people who were confirmed as eligible, information on who has been scheduled to report for at least one day of service, empanelment data (i.e., they got sent to a courtroom for voir dire) showing the days of attendance and end dates of service
      • Collecting information on why someone wasn’t selected began this year (e.g., juror, alternate juror, peremptory challenge defense, peremptory challenge plaintiff, etc.)
  • Dooley asked if OJD has looked at why some county’s deferral and non-response rates are higher than average?
    • Harvis replied that she has been using Oregon by the numbers and Oregon census data to try to compare those rates against the demographic data that is not currently collected
      • There's no statewide report by county, but Harvis has given courts local information to look at county-specific reasons (e.g., seasonal deferral, larger aging population, long term of service length, etc.)
  • Judge Sinlapasai asked if OJD collects data on Batson challenges made in each county?
    • Harvis replied OJD collects information on when a Batson challenge occurs and we have the results and the case filing information for those, but not data beyond that
      • Two years ago, some research was done in response to a legislative question, but nothing beyond that
      • Chair McCullough suggested digging more into the data we have available
        • Harvis will look into what would be needed to do more analysis on this (e.g., case analysis, pulling aggregate data, etc.)
    • Representative Wallan noted there was a bill not too long ago that reminded her of the Batson challenge issue and noted she’d be interested in that data
  • Chair McCullough recently spoke with NCSC about Batson challenges and peremptory challenges and how those could be racially motivated
    • Some states have eliminated peremptory challenges out of concern it has the potential to skew the composition of the jury
      • If our goal is to have representative juries and removing barriers to jury service, then taking someone off a jury without explanation may be an issue to consider and discuss more
    • Judge Sinlapasai noted that if the task force forms a subcommittee on Batson challenges, she would like to be on it
      • As it applies to Oregon, she also asked for data on Batson challenges in both criminal and civil cases in relation to recent federal cases
Jury Service in Local Courts
  • Judge Tucker Rossetto, Beaverton Municipal Court, gave a presentation on jury service in local courts
    • Local courts are understood to be city municipal courts and county justice courts that fall outside the state-funded court system (i.e., the Oregon Judicial Department)
      • Local courts are usually smaller and have more limited jurisdiction
      • All circuit courts are courts of record, but only 10 of 144 local courts are
        • Reviewed what a court must do to be a court of record and how the status affects appeals
    • There are 118 municipal courts in Oregon, some operate full-time (e.g., 7:30am-4:30pm Monday through Friday) and others are part-time (e.g., meet once every two months)
    • Discussed how municipal court judges are appointed and the requirements for becoming one
    • Municipal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with their circuit court and their county’s justice court, if they have one, over all violations and misdemeanors (unless drug-related), but not felony matters
      • This includes those created by state statute and city code/ordinance
      • Felonies and drug-related misdemeanors go to circuit court
      • Only 20-25 municipal courts in Oregon exercise criminal jurisdiction, so only those of the total of 118 could have jury trials
    • Justice courts are courts held by a justice of the peace within the justice of the peace district for which the justice of the peace may be chosen
      • There are 26 justice courts in Oregon
      • There may be more than one justice court per county, and it’s possible to have an intergovernmental agreement between cities and counties so a justice court may also be a municipal court
      • Justice courts do not have jurisdiction over felonies or drug-related misdemeanors
      • Only six justice courts in Oregon exercise criminal jurisdiction and only five of those hold jury trials
      • Reviewed criteria for becoming a justice of the peace
    • Compared Beaverton Municipal courts case filings in 2024 and 2025 to those of the Washington County Circuit Court
      • The circuit court had almost six times as many judges and held more jury trials (3 vs. 208 in 2024; 5 vs. 219 in 2025)
      • Reviewed the cases in each court by case type (felony, misdemeanor, violation)
    • Compared how jury trials operate in local courts versus circuit courts and the differences in the jury summons processes
      • Jury summons processes vary between local courts, whereas the circuit court system is more uniform
      • In Beaverton, typically 1-5 jurors are excused pretrial and another 1-5 do not appear
        • Most common excusal requests include physical/mental health, cost or lack of childcare, care for other dependents, cost of missing work, lack or cost of transportation, and prescheduled travel or appointment
      • Small jurisdictions sometimes run into the issue of jurors knowing the parties, judge, etc.
    • Juror compensation requirements differ between state and local courts
      • Circuit courts must pay $10 per day for the first two days then $25 each day after and $0.20/mile for mileage compensation
      • Local courts must pay $10 per day and provide $0.08/mile for mileage compensation
  • Representative Andersen noted that most people likely don’t know the difference between circuit and local courts and asked if the no-show rate is higher in local courts than circuit courts?
    • Judge Rossetto replied that, while there may be centralized data collection on that for circuit courts, local courts would have to look court-by-court for those numbers
    • Justice of the Peace Machelle Briggs-Mayfield noted that she sent out 500 summons for the year back in November and 140 haven’t replied
      • Representative Andersen noted that we can’t know why if they didn’t fill out the form
        • Justice of the Peace Briggs-Mayfield speculated it may be that people do not want to do jury service and ignore the summons
Circuit Courts During COVID
  • Tolbert asked at the January 22 meeting how COVID affected jury service
  • The meeting materials included Presiding Judge Orders (PJOs) and Chief Justice Orders (CJOs) from during COVID, descriptions of changes to courts to account for social distancing, and links to materials OJD created to help circuit courts analyze the resources needed for jury selection, a sample presentation courts could use to orient their remote jurors, and an American Board of Trial Advocates article
  • Practices varied throughout the state
  • Some courts rented larger spaces such as fairgrounds and some remodeled for social distancing
  • Some courts had remote trials
    • Two trials in Multnomah County Circuit Court were done fully remotely
      • Tolbert asked if those were civil or criminal cases
        • Chair McCullough responded they were both civil
    • Most courts have gone back to in-person proceedings
    • Tolbert asked about the statistics for trials conducted during COVID
      • Were they unorthodox? Did they have different findings than if they had been in person?
    • Tolbert asked if we should consider virtual jury selection for civil versus criminal cases?
      • Chair McCullough speculated that, in the criminal context, people would likely prefer to be in person
    • Tolbert asked if the sentiment around remote juries is the same at local and circuit courts? Would municipal court attorneys doing criminal cases have the same concerns about remote juries?
    • Judge Sinlapasai noted she tried to do trials and voir dire remotely during COVID, but it posed unique challenges with jury selection
      • You don’t have the same level of attention and focus from potential jurors as you do in person, for both civil and criminal cases
      • Harvis also heard that managing people’s attention was a challenge in addition to inconsistent cell access and access to Wi-fi at home
        • This made hybrid remote/in-person juries even harder
  • Please send additional follow-up questions to Chair McCullough
Returned to Ratifying Minutes
  • Chair McCullough asked everyone to raise a hand if they had any concerns or changes with the draft of the April 7 meeting minutes
    • No hands were raised
  • Chair McCullough asked for a motion to ratify the April 7 minutes
    • Judge Rossetto moved to ratify, and Tolbert seconded the motion
      • Chair McCullough asked if there were any objections
        • There were none, so Chair McCullough noted the minutes were considered ratified
Where We Are Going from Here
  • We can do a high-level overview of the different barriers and then start focusing on each one and potential policy solutions
    • Next meeting will focus on juror compensation, then we can move on to public education since both of those are called out in SB 1175
      • Chair McCullough asked if there was anything the group wanted to discuss before those or if there were other barriers to explore after
        • Dooley noted starting with compensation sounded good and asked to add elder care and childcare to the list of barriers
        • Tolbert agreed starting with compensation is good and also wanted to focus on the audience and Batson challenges
  • Lyons will send out a National Center for State Courts (NCSC) report on juror compensation in the United States and HB 4844 (Illinois legislation relating to juror compensation) next week as part of the materials for the June 8 meeting so there is time to review beforehand
Next Meeting
  • Date: June 8, 2026
  • Time: 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
  • Via: Webex Webinar

PowerPoint: Oregon Juror Compensation - Legislative History

Slide 1: Oregon Juror Compensation - Legislative History
  • Kimberly McCullough
  • Senior Counsel for Government Relations
  • June 8, 2026
Slide 2: 1955
  • Fees
    • $7.50/day for courts of record
    • $5 (total) for juror sworn in justice court
  • Travel
    • $0.08/miles if fees prescribed
Slide 3: 1955 Adjusted by Consumer Price Index (CPI) in 2026
  • Fees
    • = $92.76/day for courts of record
    • = $61.84 (total) for juror sworn in justice court
  • Travel 
    • = $0.99/mile if fees prescribed
Slide 4: 1957
  • Fees 
    • $7.50/day for courts of record
    • $5 (total) for juror sworn in justice court
  • Travel
    • $0.08/mile if fees prescribed + $6/day if >40 miles away
Slide 5: 1957 Adjusted by CPI in 2026
  • Fees 
    • = $89.73/day for courts of record
    • = $59.82 (total) for juror sworn in justice court
  • Travel
    • = $0.96/mile if fees prescribed + $71.79/day if >40 miles away
Slide 6: 1971
  • Fees 
    • $10/day for courts of record
    • $10 (total) for juror sworn in justice court
  • Travel
    • $0.08/mile if fees prescribed
Slide 7: 1971 Adjusted by CPI in 2026
  • Fees
    • = $82.97/day for courts of record
    • = $82.97 (total) for juror sworn in justice court
  • Travel
    • = $0.66/mile if fees prescribed
Slide 8: 1981
  • State pays fees & mileage for circuit courts
  • Counties allowed to pass ordinance for additional pay by county
Slide 9: 1999
  • Fees 
    • $10/day for courts other than circuit courts
    • $10/day for first two days in circuit court
    • Minimum wage ($6/hr) for subsequent days in circuit court, with $10 minimum & $50 maximum/day
  • Travel
    • $0.08/mile for courts other than circuit courts
    • Actual cost of travel or mileage rate established by Department of Administrative Services (DAS) (only if driving >10 miles) or public transportation cost for circuit courts
Slide 10: 1999 Adjusted by CPI & Minimum Wage in 2026
  • Fees 
    • = $20.10/day for courts other than circuit courts
    • = $20.10/day for first two days in circuit court
    • = Minimum wage ($14.05-16.30) for subsequent days in circuit court, with $20.10 minimum & $100.49 maximum/day
  • Travel
    • = $0.16/mile for courts other than circuit courts
    • Actual cost of travel or mileage rate established by DAS (only if driving >10 miles) or public transportation cost for circuit courts
Slide 11: 1999 Cont.
  • Allowed payment for extraordinary expenses
  • Required waiver of fees (but not mileage) if employer pays for service in circuit courts
  • Counties and cities allowed to pass ordinance for additional pay in courts other than circuit courts
  • Allowed jurors to waive payment in circuit courts and send to account for Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) programs and activities 
Slide 12: 2001
  • Fees
    • $10/day for courts other than circuit courts
    • $10/day for first two days in circuit court
    • Lesser of minimum wage ($6.50/hr) or $50 for subsequent days in circuit court
      • 4 hrs minimum ($26 at minimum wage)
      • 8 hrs if more than 4 hours served (exceeds $50 max)
  • Travel
    • $0.08/mile for courts other than circuit courts
    • Actual cost of travel or mileage rate established by DAS (only if driving >10 miles) or public transportation cost for circuit courts
Slide 13: 2001 Adjusted by CPI & Minimum Wage in 2026
  • Fees 
    • = $18.86/day for courts other than circuit courts
    • = $18.86/day for first two days in circuit court
    • = Lesser of minimum wage ($14.05-16.30/hr) or $94.29 for subsequent days in circuit court
      • 4 hrs minimum ($56.20-$65.20)
      • 8 hrs if more than 4 hrs served (exceeds $94.29 max)
  • Travel
    • = $0.15/mile for courts other than circuit courts
    • = Actual cost of travel or mileage rate established by DAS (only if driving >10 miles) or public transportation cost for circuit courts
Slide 14: 2001 Cont.
  • Required waiver of fees (but not mileage) if employer pays for service in all courts, including municipal and justice courts
Slide 15: 2002
  • Fees
    • $10/day for courts other than circuit courts
    • $10/day for first two days in circuit court
    • $25/day for subsequent days in circuit court
  • Travel
    • $0.08/mile for courts other than circuit courts
    • $0.20/mile or public transportation costs for circuit courts
Slide 16: 2002 Adjusted by CPI in 2026
  • Fees
    • = $18.65/day for courts other than circuit courts
    • = $18.65/day for first two days in circuit court
    • = $46.61/day for subsequent days in circuit court
  • Travel
    • = $0.15/mile for courts other than circuit courts
    • = $0.37/mile or public transportation for circuit courts

Public Comment Submitted Via Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service Online Contact Form

Public Comment Submitted May 2, 2026, by Tracie Layman:
  • "Jury selection seems to be missing a large group of available jurors: seniors. I have lived here for 16 years and only received one summons for jury duty. I may be elderly but my mind is still sharp. I believe there are many like me in Deschutes County.”
Public Comment Submitted May 2, 2026, by Doug Jeffries:
  • "Just read an article in the Bend Bulletin about your task force. I served on a couple juries – the last one was a grand jury in Deschutes County. I found it educational about the law, how it is applied and enforced, limits placed on prosecutors, etc. But to your issue of making jury duty more appealing – the one thing that I hate most about jury duty is having to sit and listen to people rant and rave about personal rights and refusing to listen to anything anyone else has to say. If people would honestly and openly listen to what someone else has to say; and if people would contain their commentary to facts and questions specific to the case and the laws in effects it would go a long way to making the process more palatable. I also think it is a travesty to mandate a unanimous decision in order to pass judgment. When and where in today’s society will you ever get 100% of the people to agree? The system needs to revert back to majority rule, otherwise it’s just an exercise in frustration.”

Ratified Meeting Minutes

Ratified - Meeting Minutes (voted on at the 7/14/26 meeting)
Task Force on Removing Barriers to Jury Service
Date: June 8, 2026
Time: 11:30am-1:00pm
Location: Virtual via Webex Webinar
Members in Attendance: Derek Sangston, Chair Kimberly McCullough, Tim Dooley, Honorable Matthew Shirtcliff, Senator James Manning, Jr., Andrew Smith on Behalf of Representative Tom Andersen, Honorable Chanpone Sinlapasai, Royce Williams, Kia Tolbert, Bryan Brock, Nansi López, Keren Farkas
Members Not in Attendance: Honorable Tucker Rossetto, Senator Kim Thatcher, Representative Wallan
Quorum: Yes (9)
Ratify Prior Meeting Minutes
  • Chair McCullough asked if anyone had changes to the prior meeting minutes
    • There were none
  • Chair McCullough asked if there were objections to ratifying the prior meeting minutes
    • There were none
  • Chair McCullough noted the prior meeting minutes were ratified
High-Level Overview to Understand the Universe of Potential Barriers and Brainstorm Policy Ideas for Overcoming Barriers
  • Chair McCullough referenced the prior Citizens on Call and Preserving the Future of Jury Trials reports that were previously sent as materials
  • Brock noted there are many people who cannot do multi-day jury trials, but in most counties you don’t know how long the jury service will be when you receive a summons
    • The majority of cases generally end up being one day
    • Brock noted many people summoned seem to think it will be for multiple days and therefore don’t respond or ask to be excused, but when they find out it will likely be for one day they say they can do that
    • If there was a way to ask people who would be available for a one-day jury service, we may get more people responding and less saying they can’t serve
      • Seems more possible in the criminal rather than civil sphere
      • People may be able to afford the financial burden of attending for one day more than they could attending for one week
    • Chair McCullough noted ORS 10.107 (i.e., the goal of having jurors serve for one day or one trial)
      • Some courts have implemented that, but some have not
      • Agreed that where it’s possible to say service will be for one day, it would be helpful to let potential jurors know that
      • There's a public education component here in letting people know how often it tends to only be one day
    • Tolbert noted a concern that the court/parties don’t necessarily know when the summonses are sent whether it will be one-day, and some trials end up getting cancelled, continued, or resolved at the last minute
      • Example: Douglas County assigns jurors to trials randomly on the day of trial
      • Unclear how to implement advance notice in practice
      • Could implementing new trial court rules make it possible to know further in advance which cases will need jurors?
      • We could have public education about how long a trial usually lasts
    • Andrew Smith for Representative Andersen
      • There's no guarantee how long a trial would last, but we could educate the public by saying something on the summons about how many trials resolve in one day and that, while not guaranteed, it’s likely you would only serve one day
        • Is there any risk with putting something informational in the summons?
    • Dooley tried to comment but had audio issues
    • Judge Shirtcliff noted that Baker County has a jury orientation day where the court explains that if a juror has a scheduling conflict they can let the court know so they won’t need to come for a trial, but that they will still need to check the phone and website for messages from the court
      • Would it be possible/legal to have people request to only serve on one-day trials?
      • Agreed that noting on summonses that most, but not all, trials, are one-day could potentially help with turnout
      • López noted that potentially having an FAQ on the summons about jury service could help give folks a general sense of what to be prepared for and then further detail could be given as people come to the court
      • Tolbert cautioned that allowing potential jurors to choose to only be assigned to one-day trials could be problematic
        • Could result in only those with the financial means to serve longer than one day being assigned to certain cases, particularly in criminal cases where they may not be the peers of the defendant
    • Harvis noted that setting trial expectations can be helpful and that there are some things that could help with that
      • Judicial considerations of jury trial certainty and more strict call hearings
      • Providing clarity on lengthier trials and reevaluation of length of service in counties with longer terms
      • Increasing public knowledge on jury trial expectations
        • The Oregon Judicial Department has some information on its jury website on length of service, but not on the summonses
    • Chair McCullough noted we can do a deeper dive into the one day/one trial issue and setting expectations around length of service at a future meeting
    • Dooley attempted to speak again, but audio issues continued
  • Brock suggested educating the public, before they get a summons, as to what jury service entails, its importance, and dissuading common concerns could prepare people for when they do get a summons
    • May cost less than increasing juror compensation
    • Chair McCullough suggested doing a deeper dive into the public education piece and what a state investment in that could look like
  • López noted it’s important to continue discussing the financial burden issue
    • Even if people want to participate, it can be a decision between paying for food/gas/etc. and attending jury service
      • Having a jury of peers is hard when your peers cannot afford to go
    • Interested in looking at innovative ways to improve the financial issue
      • We could discuss pilot programs from other states and see if we can learn from those
      • Example: Of $1.8 million Oregon provides for juror compensation, $580K was not requested, so if we could build a system that assesses people’s needs so they can participate would make a big difference on what our juries look like across the state
        • Would also help identify the daily struggles Oregonians face
  • Tolbert agreed that we need public education/outreach about the jury system and post-jury duty feedback and also suggested the task force address:
    • Having mock jury trial programs, especially for those who are younger and just receiving their license, which could potentially engage parents too
    • Lack of control and long waiting times
      • Once someone receives a summons, they could let the court know the best times in that month that they could attend jury duty
        • Potentially having an online scheduling platform
      • Making it clearer to the public that you can request a deferral/excusal online prior to the day before service
      • Online juror qualification questionnaires to let jurors know if it’s a type of case that would be traumatic or triggering for them so they can inform the court in advance
      • Staggering jury panel sign-ins to avoid long security/check-in lines
    • Uniform Trial Court Rules establishing and addressing unnecessary pretrial concerns beforehand
      • Deadlines to resolve cases would be helpful in helping jurors know in advance if they would be serving
    • Providing proposed agendas for trial to help jurors know what to expect
    • Discuss juror compensation by examining/comparing multiple state frameworks (CA, AZ, FL, OR, MA/CT - Employer Pay-State Pay, NY - Wage Replacement, Expense Focus Model)
    • Making the extraordinary expenses fund more accessible
    • Childcare at courthouses
    • Lodging for jurors in instances where traveling to/from court is difficult or it would be very dark in an area where driving at night is unsafe
    • Court shuttle in counties without good public transport
    • Potentially, remote processes for civil cases
    • Privacy and safety concerns for jurors
      • Unclear if there’s more to address beyond juror anonymity
    • Having access to post-jury duty counseling to address post-trial anxiety/guilt and vicarious trauma 
  • Andrew Smith for Representative Andersen suggested we could diversify support for these issues and that the task force should look into shared funding models
  • We could maybe explore a partnership with the state bar (they have a role in education and outreach we could tap into)
  • Potentially having dedicated funding in bar dues that lawyers pay
  • Would that be appropriate?
Juror Compensation
  • Review Juror Compensation in Oregon
    • Chair McCullough presented on Oregon’s juror compensation history
      • Reviewed changes in juror pay (per diem and mileage) from 1955 to 2002, both what they were then and adjusted per the Consumer Price Index to see how much that would be in 2026
      • Noted differences in pay between circuit courts, justice courts, and municipal courts, as well as distinctions for courts of record
      • Discussed how the implementation of the Grand Bargain impacted the shift from counties paying versus the state paying
      • Noted that the extraordinary expenses payment was created in 1999
      • Discussed the implementation of requiring jurors for circuit courts to waive fees, but not mileage, if their employer paid
      • Juror compensation amounts in circuit courts were last adjusted in 2002
  • What It Would Cost to Increase Compensation
    • Ran out of time, we will discuss this at the next meeting
  • National Landscape 
    • Jawwaad Johnson, Director for Center of Jury Studies, NCSC, and Miriam Hamilton, Senior Research Analyst, NCSC, introduced themselves
    • Hamilton shared slides showing the minimum flat per diem juror fee across multiple states
      • States tend to have either a flat rate or a locally based rate where they pay be a minimum amount of pay
        • Most have daily rates, but some pay per hour based on minimum wage
      • Hamilton reviewed the payment models of several different states
      • Not many states have increased juror compensation itself, rather they have tried to alleviate barriers by doing things such as providing free childcare, increasing mileage and parking reimbursements, etc.
    • Jawaad noted that many states are looking into the issue of juror compensation and holistic approaches to removing barriers to jury service
      • Failure to appear/respond rates for jurors are high across the country
      • Example: New Jersey started adding a QR code on the summons to provide information about jury service to jurors before they get to court
      • Improving juror education by educating people on their rights as jurors and, if selected, their duties, length of term, etc. and the direct contact information for their local jury management office
        • Example: In New Jersey, juror orientation is now recorded and made remote and accessible to all jurors when they receive their summons
    • Brock asked if NCSC has statistics on how the discussed changes other states have made has impacted juror attendance/response rates (the legislature would want to know this if the task force will be asking for funds)
      • Jawwaad noted that North Dakota is collecting appearance statistics, but they haven’t shared their findings with NCSC
        • Jawwaad noted they may be more likely to share that with another state system instead
    • Chair McCullough noted HB 4844 (Illinois) had passed both chambers and was awaiting the Governor’s signature, but Jawwaad was not sure if it will be signed
      • Illinois also has a law that you can’t be required to work the night shift if you have jury duty the next day
        • Chair McCullough noted Oregon does not have this, but it may be a suggestion this task force could make
          • Dooley noted that that clause has been in some union contracts he has worked on, and that, while hard for the employer, it is a benefit to employees
    • Tolbert asked if NCSC has been able to compare attendance rates to the different compensation formats that currently exist across different states
      • NCSC does not currently have good data on that
      • Anecdotally, NCSC has heard that courts implementing newer technology to pay jurors faster seems to affect jurors positively (e.g., getting paid instantly rather than waiting)
    • López asked NCSC, based on what they’ve seen across the country, what they think the perfect system would entail
      • Hamilton cited:
        • North Dakota increasing juror pay to $100/day
        • New York, but their juror pay model is tied to employers paying a portion, which makes it harder to implement
        • Arizonia's lengthy jury trial fund
    • Williams asked if any states have looked into putting the cost of juror pay in civil jury trials on the parties?
      • Hamilton noted she has heard that idea in brainstorming sessions, but was not sure it had been implemented anywhere
      • Smith seconded Willams’ cost splitting idea
      • Senator Manning asked if a court filing fee could be used to address that? (e.g., adding $1 to that fee to go towards jurors)
        • Chair McCullough agreed the idea is worth discussing further and noted it would be added to the task force’s list of various ideas
    • Tolbert noted it’s important that we broaden the pool of potential jurors, particularly to try to include the unhoused population
      • It's supposed to be a jury of the defendant’s peers, and, especially in criminal cases, many of the clients represented are unhoused individuals
      • Unclear how this would be done, but it’s something to think about
      • Chair McCullough asked Hamilton if other states have done this?
        • Hamilton has not seen this done
      • Harvis noted that improving source lists (such as including those receiving public benefits) may help
        • OJD has not historically done an evaluation of its source lists
    • If anyone has more questions or data requests for NCSC, send them to Chair McCullough and she can pass them along
Where We Are Going From Here
  • Further discuss juror compensation
  • Impacts of trauma and stress from jury service
  • Longer lengths of service
  • Public education 
  • Accessibility 
  • Peremptory challenges 
Public Comment
  • None 
Next Meeting
  • Date: July 14, 2026
  • Time: 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
  • Via: Webex Webinar