Over the next few months, we’ll be hosting a series of posts on political engagement and democracy from practitioners and researchers around the world. Our third post in the series is from David Schecter. Based in San Francisco, CA, David is a researcher and deliberation practitioner currently exploring new methods for improving democratic governance and collective decision making.

I believe that the Citizens Jury (invented by Ned Crosby, and practiced and popularized by the Jefferson Center) is one of the most promising democratic innovations of our time. So far, however, it hasn’t been used up to its potential. Most Citizens Juries are one-time processes, and most of them are advisory only. I think it’s time for Citizens Juries to become part of our government, on an ongoing basis — starting at the local and state levels.

Why should Citizens Juries be part of government? We already elect legislators and executives to make policy decisions. We have appointed citizen boards and commissions. We have opinion polls and public meetings. In 26 U.S. states, we even have the power to make laws through initiative and referendum.

These institutions are important, but I believe there is a critical missing piece — a “voice of the people” that is representative, deliberative, informed and independent. None of the institutions I mentioned meet all these standards — but Citizens Juries can.

Elected legislatures and appointed boards and commissions are informed and influential, but they are not representative samples of the public — for example, working people, women, people of color, and young people are usually under-represented. Legislatures, boards, and commissions face constant pressure from campaign donors, lobbyists, party leaders, and the media. And the pressures of party competition and media coverage make it hard for them to engage in real dialogue and make good policies together. Opinion polls and initiative and referenda are more representative than elected legislatures or appointed boards and commissions, but they usually aren’t well informed and they don’t involve deliberation. Public meetings are usually not representative, well informed, ordeliberative.

Now, think about Citizens Juries. They are representative samples of the public. They are independent of pressure from campaign donors, party leaders, and the media. They are well informed. And they deliberate in a cooperative way, without the pressures of party competition or media coverage. Citizens Juries can give us the missing “voice of the people” in our democracy.

There are some interesting precedents for this. Citizen Initiative Review in Oregon regularly uses Citizens Juries to review ballot initiatives. Randomly selected bodies similar to Citizens Juries have developed constitutional amendments in Canada and Ireland, and in Australia they have successfully decided entire city budgets in Canada Bay, Geraldton, and Melbourne).

So how could we make Citizens Juries (or similar representative samples of the public) part of our governments? I have been trying to figure this out for San Francisco and California. I don’t have any conclusive answers, but I do have some ideas.

I’ll start with the legislative branch. Every U.S. State except Nebraska has a legislature with two elected houses. Why not keep the lower house elected, but make the upper house a representative sample of the people? This idea is being debated on the national level in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Belgium. On the local level, we could add a jury-like second branch to the City Council, or smaller Citizens Juries could help City Council committees to develop policy.

Then, there are initiatives and referenda. Citizens Juries already review state ballot initiatives in Oregon, and reviews are beginning in Colorado and Arizona. Why not give them the power to make decisions about initiatives between election years?

What about the Executive Branch? Many cities in the United States have the Council-Manager form of government, with an elected City Council and a City Manager, but no policy-making Mayor. In these cities, the City Council usually chooses the City Manager. Terry Bouricius and I have proposed (here) that one Citizens Jury-like body (a “hiring panel”) would hire the City Manager, a longer-term citizen body (a “review panel”) would review their performance — and if the review panel thought it was necessary to remove a City Manager, a separate “accountability jury” would make the final decision.

I would like to leave readers with two questions. Do you agree that Citizens Juries should play a part in our governments — especially local and state governments? If so, what part should they play? I am starting conversations about this in San Francisco, and with people in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. I welcome you to join this conversation.