WatchGov

California bills · 2025-2026 Regular Session

California SB 645

Juries: peremptory challenges.

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed Senate
  4. Passed House
  5. To Governor
  6. Became law

Sponsors

Summary

Official abstract published by the California legislature· summary

Existing law provides for the exclusion of a prospective juror from a trial jury by peremptory challenge. Existing law prohibits a party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of, among other things, the prospective juror's race, ethnicity, or gender. Existing law allows a party, or the trial court on its own motion, to object to the use of a peremptory challenge based on these criteria. Upon objection, existing law requires the party exercising the challenge to state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. Existing law requires the court to evaluate the reasons given, as specified, and, if the court grants the objection, authorizes the court to take certain actions, including, but not limited to, starting a new jury selection, declaring a mistrial at the request of the objecting party, seating the challenged juror, or providing another remedy as the court deems appropriate. Under existing law, one of the circumstances the court may consider includes whether the counsel or counsel's office exercising the challenge has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of these groups, in the present case or in past cases, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, prohibits the application of these provisions to civil cases. This bill would extend the prohibition against application of these provisions to civil cases indefinitely, except as specified, including cases involving a civil rights violation and cases for the civil commitment of a person. The bill would require the party bringing specified claims to notify the court and the other party or parties of the applicability of these provisions in those civil cases, as specified. The bill would limit the court's consideration of counsel or counsel's office use of peremptory challenges in the present case or in past cases, as described above, to when counsel or counsel's office is a public entity.

Text versions

Roll-call votes

State vote data last updated Oct 16, 2026, 4:04 AM.

DateVoteResultYour legislators
Sep 12, 2025
Senate		Unfinished Business SB645 Umberg ConcurrencepassSet your home in California to see
Sep 11, 2025
House		SB 645 Umberg Senate Third Reading By PapanpassSet your home in California to see
Aug 29, 2025
House		Do pass.passSet your home in California to see
Jul 8, 2025
House		Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]passSet your home in California to see
Jun 4, 2025
Senate		3rd ReadingpassSet your home in California to see
Apr 8, 2025
Senate		Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]passSet your home in California to see

Actions