HB2632 amends Virginia law governing juror compliance with court requests. The bill keeps the existing penalty for a juror who, after receiving due notice, fails to appear in court without sufficient excuse: a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $200. It also adds a new provision addressing jury questionnaires, authorizing a court to require a juror who receives a questionnaire and fails to return it without good cause to appear in the clerk’s office and complete the questionnaire in a manner determined by the clerk.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at improving jury administration by giving courts a clearer enforcement tool when prospective jurors do not return required questionnaires. It would amend and reenact Section 8.01-356 of the Code of Virginia, expanding the statute from only addressing failure to appear for jury service to also covering failure to complete the questionnaire process.
Impact
The bill would change Virginia’s juror compliance statute by expressly authorizing court-ordered follow-up for nonreturned jury questionnaires, in addition to preserving the existing fine for failure to appear for jury duty. This would affect prospective jurors, clerks’ offices, and courts responsible for assembling jury pools, and it would give clerks a direct mechanism to complete missing questionnaire information. The bill amends Code of Virginia § 8.01-356.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests limited support in subcommittee, but not enough to advance the measure: the subcommittee recommended laying the bill on the table by a 5-3 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a procedural jury-administration measure rather than a high-profile policy proposal.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether courts should have additional authority to compel completion of jury questionnaires and whether that enforcement approach is necessary or burdensome. Supporters would likely view the bill as a practical way to improve jury pool administration and compliance, while opponents may have concerns about expanding court involvement for nonresponse to questionnaires or about imposing additional obligations on prospective jurors. The 5-3 subcommittee vote to lay the bill on the table indicates some resistance, but the specific arguments are not recorded in the provided materials.