Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

deplorable,  but  what  does  that  have  to  do  with  the  broad
constitutional question before us?  The answer is: nothing.
For one thing, whatever the reasons why Louisiana and
Oregon originally adopted their rules many years ago, both
States readopted their rules under different circumstances
in  later  years.  Louisiana’s  constitutional  convention  of 
1974 adopted a new, narrower rule, and its stated purpose 
was  “judicial  efficiency.”    State  v.  Hankton,  2012–0375, 
p. 19 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/2/13), 122 So.  3d 1028, 1038.  “In 
that debate no mention was made of race.”  Ibid.; 7 Records 
of  the  Louisiana  Constitutional  Convention  of  1973:  Con-
vention Transcripts 1184–1189 (La. Constitutional Conven-
tion Records Comm’n 1977).  The people of Louisiana rati-
fied the new Constitution.  The majority makes no effort to
show either that the delegates to the constitutional conven-
tion  retained  the  rule  for  discriminatory  purposes  or  that 
proponents  of  the  new  Constitution  made  racial  appeals
when approval was submitted to the people.  The same is 
true for Oregon’s revisions and reenactments.  Ore. Const., 
Art.  I,  §11  (amended  May  18,  1934);  Ore.  Rev.  Stat.
§136.450 (1997); §136.610 (1971). 

The more important point, however, is that today’s deci-
sion is not limited to anything particular about Louisiana
or Oregon.  The Court holds that the Sixth Amendment re-
quires jury unanimity in all state criminal trials.  If at some 
future time another State wanted to allow non-unanimous 
verdicts,  today’s  decision  would  rule  that  out—even  if  all 
that State’s lawmakers were angels. 

For this reason, the origins of the Louisiana and Oregon
rules have no bearing on the broad constitutional question 
that the Court decides.  That history would be relevant if 
there were no legitimate reasons why anyone might think 
that allowing non-unanimous verdicts is good policy.  But