Can a death sentence with no Black jurors be just?

California hasn’t executed anyone since 2006, and while voters have supported keeping the death penalty, Gov. Gavin Newsom overrode them by imposing a moratorium in 2019.

Legal battles have continued during this stalemate, including over potential racial bias in how California metes out capital punishment.

The issue is arising in Alameda County, explains CalMatters news intern Shaanth Nanguneri. In April, a federal judge ordered a review of all death penalty cases from the Alameda District Attorney’s office after evidence emerged from a 1995 Oakland murder conviction that prosecutors appeared to exclude Black and Jewish jurors from serving.

The dozens of death penalty cases include the 2000 conviction of a Hayward man who murdered and sodomized a young mother. But on Monday, the state’s highest court upheld his death sentence, ruling that the prosecutor had dismissed Black jurors for valid reasons.

The ruling: “We conclude in each instance the prosecutor’s reasons were inherently plausible and supported.”

The court did acknowledge the prosecutor made some errors during the trial, but none serious enough to reverse the jury’s decision. 

Research has suggested that Black Americans are historically less likely to support punitive policies, including the death sentence, leading some prosecutors to exclude Black jurors. And while there is less data on Jewish Americans’ attitudes toward the death penalty, a 2014 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found them to be less supportive than white Protestants and white Catholics.

This week’s ruling underscored the high bar attorneys must clear when using racial bias in courts as grounds to reverse a capital sentence. Racial justice advocates rallied Tuesday in front of an Oakland courthouse to urge for continued accountability.

Robert Bacon, an attorney working with anti-death penalty advocates: “It’s unfortunately business as usual. Both in the sense of their indifference to the problem of … racial discrimination in jury selection and also in their essentially putting on blinders and refusing to consider this information that’s come to light.”

Exclusion of certain jurors isn’t the only reason advocates argue California’s death penalty is discriminatory. In April, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a petition contending that the state’s death penalty is racially biased, and that Black people were at least five times more likely to be sent to death row than non-Black defendants.

To reduce the number of death sentences, California passed a law in 2022 to make it easier to challenge convictions and sentences as racially biased. Last year, four people were sentenced to death in California — all of whom were Black or Latino. Meanwhile, as of June 7, 636 inmates remain on California’s death row.

Read more about the cases in Shaanth’s story.

The next time you apply for a job, could artificial intelligence software toss out your resume based on your nationality, religion or gender?

That’s what regulators at the California Civil Rights Department are trying to prevent as they hammer out rules to restrict employers’ use of AI to filter job applicants, writes CalMatters tech reporter Khari Johnson. A draft of the rules was published in May and the public has until July 18 to comment. Afterwards, the department can amend and will eventually approve the rules. 

The rules stipulate that AI systems that analyze an applicant’s “tone of voice, facial expressions or other physical characteristics” may be illegal discrimination. These systems may also not be used if they have an “adverse impact” on candidates based on protected characteristics such as race, age and disability. The rules make clear that because third parties that provide AI services are considered agents of the employer, the employer will be held responsible for discrimination. 

Kevin Kish, department director, in a statement: “We’re proud of California’s innovative spirit. … At the same time, we also have a responsibility to ensure our laws keep pace and that we retain hard-won civil rights.”

There has been evidence that AI tools can automate workplace discrimination: In May, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint with federal regulators alleging that a resume screening software discriminates against people based on race and disability. And an analysis by Bloomberg of an AI model by Open AI, an industry leader, found that the model can demonstrate racial bias when sifting through resumes. 

Learn more about the issue in Khari’s story.

Snapchat settlement: The civil rights department also announced Wednesday it has reached a $15 million settlement with the Santa Monica-based parent company of Snapchat over alleged discrimination, harassment and retaliation against women. 

Once a court approves, the state will pay female employees in California between 2014 and 2024. The deal resolves a three-year investigation into allegations that women lost promotion opportunities to less qualified male colleagues, suffered unwelcome sexual advances and other harassment and faced retaliation when they spoke up.

It hasn’t been a great legislative session so far for climate justice advocates. 

First, Assemblymember Laura Friedman, a Burbank Democrat, pulled her bill to make oil well operators liable for health harms. 

Then, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat, decided to delay for at least another year his constitutional amendment to enshrine Californians’ right to clean air and water.

And Wednesday, an Assembly committee killed Senate Bill 252, which would have banned CalPERS and CalSTRS — the two largest public pension funds in California — from making new investments or renewing investments in fossil fuel companies. The bill, authored by Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, was approved by the Senate last month.

Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, in a statement: “The longer we prop up the fossil fuel industry, the more climate devastation Californians will face.” 

Given the spending cuts Gov. Newsom proposed in his budget plan, the group and others are pushing for a multibillion-dollar climate bond issue, which is under negotiation by the governor and the Legislature.

According to draft spending plans obtained by Politico, the proposal would borrow as much as $10 billion for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, flood protection, workforce development for climate jobs and more. The Legislature has until June 27 to put the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Fish news: California’s Fish and Game Commission on Wednesday approved white sturgeon for protection under the state’s Endangered Species Act. As CalMatters water reporter Rachel Becker explains, the giant freshwater fish has been declining in population due to overfishing and other threats. The Department of Fish and Wildlife still has to determine whether the fish is “threatened” or “endangered” (a review that’s expected to last at least a year), but protection under the act begins immediately. Learn more in Rachel’s story.

The number of measures on the November ballot will be finalized by June 27 and that will largely determine how much the state’s official Voter Guide will cost. CalMatters Capitol reporter Sameea Kamal and producer Robert Meeks have a video version of her story. Watch it here. 

The segment is part of SoCalMatters, which airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal and is available on YouTube.