I don't want to potentially be judged by people who can't even be fucked to vote, thank you very much.

I'd agree, except do we really want to emphasize the least engaged citizens for jury duty? That's still someone's freedom on the line, and while for some select few people finding a chance to vote is extremely difficult due to registration fuckery in Republican states, with the rise of early voting and vote by mail, the primary demographic of non-voting adults is people who are apathetic or intentionally ignorant to the political process. My fear is: "This is a waste of my time, and 30 days isn't that long; just send them to jail." And there won't be anyone who cares strongly enough to object because the jury is packed with these apathetic citizens. To clarify, I see this as more of a problem with small-fry misdemeanor or less serious felony cases, not like murder or rape trials. But that's most trials.

You could argue that politically engaged Republicans can be much, much worse on a jury, that this could help them develop a sense of engagement with politics, and that they might care if they can see their choice directly affecting someone else, but it seems sketchy.

I never understood the hatred over jury duty. Except for people who work minimum wage or don't get paid jury duty.

Jury duty is the most direct way a normal citizen can affect democracy.

I vote in every primary and every election and have never been selected for jury duty.

Which implies I have no peers.

For protected speech, I'd prefer if people would go in, take a ballot, and submit it blank. Essentially, making a statement that there is no one on the ballot who would represent them. It would be more meaningful than not going to the polling place at all. It sends a more significant message than just staying home.

I do agree that we need to make it easier, not harder, to vote.

Automatic registration, election day holiday, laws forcing employers to facilitate voting by their employees.