In February after the state’s credit was downgraded, West Virginia’s Governor asked the legislature for a bill to allow him to furlough employees. An amended version of the Senate bill (SB 446) was approved by the full Senate earlier today.
The bill as introduced, and its House counterpart (HB 2879), was unclear about the power of the governor to furlough judicial employees. (“The furlough must be inclusive of all employees within a designated department, agency, division, office, or program, regardless of the source of funds, place of work, or classification.”)
Under the bill as committee amended and approved by the Senate, the process for judicial furloughs would be out of the governor’s control. Specifically:
- The governor is expressly prohibited from ordering a furlough of constitutional officers, employees of constitutional officers, or members or employees of the judicial branch.
- When the Governor declares a fiscal emergency pursuant to SB 446, the Supreme Court of Appeals shall have authority to furlough employees and personnel of the judiciary under the Supreme Court of Appeals, including employees and personnel of the circuit courts, family courts and magistrate courts.
- Furloughs shall not be employed so as to completely close a court or court office.
- Nothing in the section of SB 446 discussing furloughs of judicial branch employees “shall be construed as granting authority for the furlough of elected judicial officers, nor shall it be construed as restricting or otherwise limiting the plenary authority of the Supreme Court of Appeals or the lower courts.”
SB 446 as amended was approved by the Senate 23-11 and is now on its way to the House.
A West Virginia Circuit judge-elect who was suspended from office for knowingly publishing false statements against his opponent in the 2016 election is now facing an impeachment effort in the state’s legislature.
During the 2016 election cycle for West Virginia’s 28th Circuit Court Steven Callaghan sent a mailer to voters showing the incumbent judge parting with then-President Barack Obama. No such party took place but Callaghan won the election by a mere 220 votes. A complaint was lodged with the state’s judicial disciplinary commission and during those proceedings and to this date Callaghan never took office (thus “Judge-Elect”).
The state’s Supreme Court of Appeals on February 9 suspended Judge-Elect Callaghan for 2 years without pay and ordered him to pay $15,000 in fines. The judiciary’s proceedings are now part of a federal lawsuit by Callaghan alleging First Amendment violations, but the state’s legislature has taken the first step of its own towards impeaching and removing Callaghan from office.
HR 10 of 2017 as filed quotes portions of the Supreme Court of Appeals’ opinion in suspending and fining Callaghan. The resolution goes on to question whether the actions move into the area of “maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor”, the language under the state’s constitution for an impeachable offense. It would require a majority of the House to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, which would try Callaghan and could remove him from office on a 2/3rds vote.
HR 10 authorizes the House Committee of the Judiciary to investigate Callaghan’s conduct and report to the House either a recommendation to not impeach or, if to impeach, articles of impeachment.
HR 10 has been filed in the House Rules Committee.
I mentioned earlier this session the Florida House bill that would require that state’s supreme court provide a “detailed explanation” to the governor and legislature for cases that take longer than 180 days. Now at least 10 members of the West Virginia House want similar reports for that state’s general jurisdiction Circuit Courts.
Under HB 2685 as filed every circuit clerk would be required to produce a report at least quarterly to the Supreme Court of Appeals, Governor, and Legislature “listing all pending cases which have exceeded the time standards for trial courts as established by rules of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.” It is likely this is a reference to Trial Court Rule 16. Moreover, the reports would be available to the public on request.
HB 2685 has been filed in the House Judiciary Committee.
West Virginia’s current voting system for the state’s courts are both nonpartisan (as of 2015) and plurality-win. This meant that in the 2016 contest for the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals the victor (Beth Walker) defeated incumbent Brent Benjamin with only 39.62% of the vote in a 5-way race.
HB 2635 as filed would prohibit such a win in the future, at least for the state’s top court. Instead, if no candidate received a majority of votes, the top 2 candidates would face off in a runoff within 30 days.
Interestingly, this would not apply to the state’s other judicial races. For example in 2016 the Circuit Court District 10, Division 4 seat was won with only 25.49% of the vote in a 10-way race while Circuit Court District 15, Division 1 was won with only 32.67% in a 6-way race. Similar races occurred for the state’s Family Court (37.34% for District 16, Division 1 & 39.11% for District 24, Division 2, both 3-way races).
HB 1635 has been filed in the House Judiciary Committee.
The latest bill in a decade-long effort to create an intermediate appellate court in West Virginia has been filed. SB 277 as introduced would create an Intermediate Court of Appeals. It appears to be similar if not identical to SB 9 of 2016, discussed here. With the creation in 2015 of the Nevada Court of Appeals, only 9 states lack an intermediate appellate court (IAC) among them West Virginia.
The new Intermediate Court of Appeals would have its own judges (6) divided into two panels of 3 (Northern District and Southern District). Other versions of the bill introduced in the last decade would have had Circuit and Supreme Court judges/justices sitting in panels of 3, a practice popular in states in the 1800s but abandoned.
- Judges would be initially appointed by the governor from a list provided by the state’s Judicial Vacancy Advisory Committee; the committee would send 3 names for each vacancy but the governor could ask for more names. After appointment the judges would be subject to nonpartisan elections by district.
- The Clerk of the Supreme Court would be clerk of the Intermediate Court of Appeals, a relatively common practice (Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee provide that the clerk of their court of last resort is also the IAC’s clerk)
- The court would use a “deflector” system: an appeal would be filed with the Supreme Court which would then either take the case itself or “deflect” it down to the IAC. Again, this is a relative common practice, for example Nevada’s new IAC uses this system.
SB 277 has been filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Earlier today the West Virginia House approved SB 339 which would create a Judicial Compensation Commission. Of note in the process has been diminishing the power of the Commission.
As introduced, the bill as discussed here provided the Commission’s recommendations would go into effect unless the legislature overrode them by a 60% vote.
The salary recommendations made by the commission shall be introduced as a concurrent resolution by the presiding officer in both the Senate and the House of Delegates no later than the twentieth day of the regular legislative session. If the Legislature fails to take action on the concurrent resolution or if the Legislature rejects the passage of the concurrent resolution by less than sixty-percent of those elected in each body, then the recommendations made by the Judicial Compensation Commission will stand…
As approved by the Senate and discussed here the Commission’s recommendation would not be automatically approved subject to override, but would be guaranteed to be turned into a bill for consideration.
a bill adopting the salary recommendations made by the commission shall be introduced by the presiding officer in both the Senate and the House of Delegates no later than the twentieth day of the regular legislative session.
As approved by the House, the Commission’s recommendation is no longer assured to even be submitted as a bill.
a bill adopting the salary recommendations made by the commission may be introduced by the presiding officer in both the Senate and the House of Delegates.
SB 339 now goes back to the Senate to concur with the House amendment.
The latest iterations of efforts to ban state courts from using foreign or international law in general, and sharia law in particular, appear to be stalling in most states. Since last month’s update there have been three pieces of activity, within only 1 bill moving.
Georgia: The House yesterday passed a heavily amended version of HB 171. As introduced, the bill provided
Any tribunal ruling shall be void and unenforceable if the tribunal bases its ruling in whole or in part on any foreign law that would deny the parties the rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution or the Georgia Constitution.
As amended the bill adds to an existing list of items (O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1) to be considered by a court when considering the issue of venue and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the following factors
whether the forum outside of this state provides for impartial tribunals and procedures that are consonant to the requirements of due process of law as required by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Georgia.
The bill was approved 165-0.
In Mississippi, which already enacted a foreign law ban in 2015, legislators attempted to enhance the existing law. SB 2400 would have allowed courts to award attorney’s fees to any party opposing recognition or enforcement of foreign law. SB 2595 specifically targeted the use of sharia law in divorce and child custody cases. Both bills died in committee.
Finally, a bill was introduced in Missouri (HB 2507) that dealt with the subject as well.
Full list of bills below the fold.
Continue reading Bans on court use of sharia/international law: GA House approves modified bill; Mississippi bill to ban sharia in divorce cases dies