The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that a defendant is not entitled to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. Although these rulings establish that states are not obligated to use racially mixed juries, they do not prohibit states from doing so. In fact, a number of policymakers and legal scholars have proposed reforms that use racial criteria to promote racial diversity on American juries. Some have suggested that the names of majority race jurors be removed from the jury list (thus ensuring a larger proportion of racial minorities); others have suggested that a certain number of seats on each jury be set aside for racial minorities.
How would you justify these reforms to a state legislature?
How would an opponent of these reforms respond?
Overall, are these good ideas or bad ideas?

These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.

Abstract
This paper explored the United States Supreme Court, which has “asserted that a defendant will not be entitled to a jury that was composed in whole or part of persons of his own race” (A.I.U., 2015, para 1). However, the “rulings established that states are not obligated to use racially mixed juries” (A.I.U., 2015, para 1), which are not prohibited for doing so. Successful legislation would be justified through new reforms by a state legislature, which it would be scrutinize by other opponents.

The Supreme Court
Introduction
The introduction of this paper was to explore the United States Supreme Court, which “repeatedly asserted that a defendant is not entitled to a jury composed in whole or part of persons of his own race” (A.I.U., 2015, para 1). However, “some have suggested that the names of majority race jurors” (A.I.U., 2015, para 1)....