THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR REPRESENTATIVENESS EMBODIES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF LITIGANTS TO A FAIR TRIAL, THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO SERVE ON JURIES, AND SOCIETAL INTEREST IN THE LEGITIMACY, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. ALTHOUGH REFORMS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE FEDERAL JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE ACT OF 1968 AND BY SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN FIVE STATES, THE FAILURE OF THE COURTS TO FORMULATE AND ENFORCE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR SOURCE LISTS HAS CONFUSED ISSUES AND ERODED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED REPRESENTATIVENESS PRINCIPLE. THE UNREPRESENTATIVENESS OF FEDERAL AND STATE JURY SYSTEMS IS LARGELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNREPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST, THE SINGLE SOURCE LIST USED BY MOST SYSTEMS. MULTIPLE LIST PROCEDURES ARE NECESSARY TO OVERCOME THE BIASES AND EXCLUSIVENESS INHERENT IN ANY AVAILABLE SINGLE LIST. VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERREPRESENT RACIAL MINORITIES, PEOPLE UNDER AGE 40, PEOPLE WITH LOWER INCOMES AND LESS EDUCATION, BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS, AND THE UNEMPLOYED. LISTS CHOSEN TO SUPPLEMENT THE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST SHOULD COMPENSATE FOR THESE DEFICIENCIES. DATA FROM VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS INDICATE THAT VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS COMBINED WITH LICENSED DRIVER, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, AND UNEMPLOYMENT LISTS GENERALLY WILL PROVIDE A REPRESENTATIVE, INCLUSIVE JURY SOURCE LIST. THE THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTING MULTIPLE LIST SYSTEMS ARE CONSIDERED, AND SEVERAL TECHNIQUES FOR COMBINING MULTIPLE LISTS AND FOR CHOOSING THE LISTS TO BE USED ARE DISCUSSED. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTIPLE LIST SYSTEMS IN USE IN 21 JURISDICTIONS ARE SUMMARIZED IN A TABLE.