Oregon is a unique state, with its style, natural wonders, politics and more. While being different can be positive, one legal system flaw that separates the Beaver State from the rest of the U.S. reflects the worst of our country’s legal history.

Oregon is currently the only state which allows non-unanimous felony convictions, with courts accepting jury votes of 10-2 or 11-1 as sufficient. However, a unanimous decision is required in murder trials.

This is an atrocious law, with discriminatory roots that severely hinder the equality of Oregon’s justice system. Allowing room for doubt in the voting process can lead to innocent people being sent to prison. Since unanimous verdicts are not required, short deliberations are common, which means the fate of Oregonians’ lives can be decided in an hour or two.

Until 2018, Louisiana and Oregon were the only states to permit this Jim Crow-era practice. Louisiana now prohibits non-unanimous convictions, thanks to an amendment to their state constitution two years ago. 

Non-unanimous rulings were introduced in Louisiana in 1880, as an attempt for white southerners to regain supremacy by preventing black jury members. This form of systemic racism was continuously upheld by the state until two years ago.

Oregon’s law is also based in hate and discrimination. Some believe the legal flaw is rooted in anti-Semitism, as non-unanimous decisions became legal following the trial of a Jewish hotel owner in 1933. Oregonions strongly disliked how the man was not convicted as a result of an 11-1 ruling, and changed the state’s courtroom practices by then allowing non-unanimous verdicts.

It is astounding to me that this law is still present in Oregon’s legal system. A Supreme Court case is challenging the ruling in the case of a Louisiana man convicted of second degree murder in 2016 by a jury’s 10-2 vote. The Supreme Court’s ruling could come as soon as this month, and this historically problematic practice could finally be ruled unconstitutional. Ramos vs. Louisiana has the chance to end a century of Jim Crow-esque legal practices. 

Overall, it is imperative that this law is abolished from the state of Oregon. Decades of non-unanimous jury verdicts are an ongoing threat to Oregonians. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of a likely innocent man, setting a positive precedent for Oregon and the entire nation.