SALEM — A bill that could have nullified hundreds of convictions by nonunanimous juries won’t move forward before the end of the 2022 legislative session, key lawmakers said Thursday, March 3.

Nonunanimous convictions were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020. At the time, Oregon was the only state in the country that allowed such convictions — people could be convicted by the guilty votes of at least 10 of 12 jurors.

But in a decision last year, the Supreme Court ruled its earlier decision didn’t apply retroactively to older convictions that were upheld after going through the appeals process.

Senate Bill 1511 sought to create a process for people who had exhausted all of their appeals to have their nonunanimous convictions vacated, potentially leading to new trials.

It was championed by criminal justice reform advocates and defense attorneys, who said creating such a process would grant justice to people who had been convicted unconstitutionally.

Funding for the bill, which had a $6 million price tag, was not included in the largest budget bill of the session approved Feb. 28 by the Oregon Legislature’s Joint Committee On Ways and Means.

The co-chairs of the budget-writing committee, Rep. Tawna Sanchez, D-Portland, and Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, D-Beaverton, confirmed the bill would not move forward this session.

The 2022 session ended March 4.

Sanchez noted the Oregon Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments this May in multiple cases that could address whether the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on nonunanimous juries should be applied retroactively.

Oregon’s practice of allowing nonunanimous jury convictions was “rooted in racism and was a disgrace for the state,” Sanchez said via email.

Research by legal scholars has shown that the provision allowing such convictions was added to Oregon’s constitution at a time of high anti-immigrant racism in 1934. Its purpose was to discount minority jurors who didn’t support a guilty verdict, researchers say.

“I’m disappointed we weren’t able to get to a broader consensus on this bill to move forward this session.” Sanchez said.

She commended Sen. Floyd Prozanski, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for working hard to narrow the scope of the bill in response to concerns voiced by crime victims during an initial hearing on the bill in early February.

In emotional testimony, several crime victims said it would be traumatic to participate in retrials of defendants years after thinking the cases were closed.

The bill was opposed by many prosecutors around the state. Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt was an early proponent of the bill, however.

In a six-page memo, the Oregon District Attorney’s Association outlined several technical reasons for opposing the bill. Association officials said evidence people could use to show they had been convicted by a nonunanimous jury was too broad and unverifiable, among other concerns.

The association also objected to the bill not providing any funding for victims programs, courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys when potentially hundreds of cases could be eligible for retrials.

Several amendments were added to the bill to address opponents’ concerns, including one that directed $6 million to the Department of Justice, district attorneys and organizations that support crime victims to help with the changes.

Lawmakers also narrowed who could petition to have their cases vacated through the post-conviction relief process under the bill. They excluded people who were found guilty of a crime against someone under the age of 18 from petitioning, as well as people who are no longer in custody and serving a sentence on a nonunanimous conviction.

Speaking Feb. 28, Prozanski said the Judiciary Committee did everything it could to address opponents’ concerns.

“We swear to be legislators who uphold the constitution of the U.S. and of the state, and it does seem like sometimes people forget that the constitution applies to everyone in this country,” Prozanski said about the bill’s failure. “We should not be allowing people to be convicted for less than what is beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Aliza Kaplan is a lawyer and professor at Lewis & Clark Law School and longtime opponent of nonunanimous juries, who worked with the Oregon Department of Justice and other advocates to draft a bill that became SB 1511.

Data compiled by Kaplan and her students show that nonunanimous convictions have disproportionately impacted people of color. Fourteen percent of people convicted by nonunanimous juries in Oregon are Black, according to the data, while only 2.2% of the population is Black.

In an interview, Kaplan said she was disappointed the bill wouldn’t move forward.

She said lawmakers chose to let a “historically racist and xenophobic” law stand “over protecting people’s constitutional rights.”

Kaplan said she has always understood that reopening previously closed cases can be “incredibly traumatic” for victims.

“It’s also really traumatic to be in prison on an unconstitutional verdict,” she said.

Kaplan added that lawmakers’ decision not to move the bill forward amounted to them weighing the suffering of one victimized group over that of another.

Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Clackamas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed for the Legislature to address the issue of retroactivity for nonunanimous jury verdicts after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

She said it was hard to discern why SB 1511 didn’t get traction after passing out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I often find it curious how we lose a little bit of our passion for civil rights and constitutional protections when you have to put money to it,” Bynum said, referring to the $6 million funding under the bill. “That’s something that always unnerves me.”