PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 21, 1993
Racial Justice Act of 1993 - Prohibits: (1) a government from imposing or carrying out the death penalty in a racially disproportionate pattern; and (2) an individual from being put to death in execution of a death sentence imposed under law administered in violation of such provision. Specifies that ordinary methods of statistical proof suffice to establish that a racially disproportionate pattern exists and that it shall not be necessary to show discriminatory motive, intent, or purpose on the part of any individual or institution. Establishes the requirements for a prima facie showing that a racially disproportionate pattern exists. States that such a showing may be rebutted by establishing by clear and convincing evidence that identifiable and pertinent nondiscriminatory factors persuasively explain the observable racial disparities comprising the disproportion. Requires any State or Federal entity that provides for the imposition of the death penalty to designate a central agency to collect and maintain pertinent data on the charging, disposition, and sentencing patterns for all cases of death-eligible crimes. Directs the central agency to affirmatively monitor compliance by local officials and agencies. Provides for the appointment of counsel for all indigent clients (and the furnishing of investigative and other services) for habeas corpus actions arising under this Act. Specifies that no determination on the merits of a factual issue made by a State court pertinent to any claim of racially disproportionate pattern shall be presumed to be correct unless: (1) the State is in compliance with requirements of this Act concerning the collection and maintenance of death penalty data; (2) the determination was made in a proceeding in a State court in which the person asserting the claim was afforded rights to appointment of counsel and to the furnishing of investigative, expert, and other services necessary for the adequate development of the claim; and (3) the determination is one which is otherwise entitled to be presumed to be correct under specified criteria. States that the failure to raise such a claim before the enactment of this Act shall not bar future claims.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3329 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3329 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3329 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3329 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.