MORGANTOWN — the Senate Judiciary Committee spent just shy of three hours on the intermediate court of appeals bill on Monday, approved an amended version in a party-line vote and sent it to the Finance Committee to review the price tag.
The proposed court will have two districts – northern and southern – with three judges for each. The districts were formed to avoid splitting circuit courts – two family courts are split – and cover roughly equal population areas. After initial staggered terms, judges would serve 10-year terms and earn $130,000 per year.
The court would handle appeals of circuit court civil cases, guardianship and conservatorship cases; family court decisions; contested administrative agency decisions; and Worker’s Comp Board of Review decisions. It will not handle criminal or juvenile proceedings, child abuse and neglect or mental hygiene proceedings, or appeals from the Public Service commission, among others.
The estimated startup cost would be $7.6 million in 2021, with annual costs thereafter at $6.34 million. The cost would be offset by elimination of the Office of Judges for Worker’s Comp cases, at a savings of $2.6 million.
All six judges would be initially appointed in June 2021. Members approved an amendment by Sen. John Pitsenbarger, R-Nicholas, to put all six positions up for election in the May 2022 primary. The judges for each district would be selected by the voters in that district.
Members also approved an amendment by Sen. Charles, Clements, R-Wetzel, to have the governor appoint the initial six form a list supplied by the Judicial Vacancy Commission.
They voted down an amendment proposed by Sen. Mike Romano, D-Harrison and a Longie opponent of an intermediate court, to put a 10-year sunset on the court. He noted that North Dakota put a sunset on its court and has decided it isn’t worth the expense.
Many intermediate court opponents say it will delay justice for average folks and benefit deep-pockets companies that want to drag out the process.
Sen. Richard Lindsay, D-Kanawha, is one of those. “I represent injured folks; that’s my job,” he said. His clients have lost loved ones, or their own ability to make a living. The insurance companies he sues want to pay as little as possible as late as possible. With this proposed court, “Now they have two bites at the apple.”
Romano said this court would accomplish the exact opposite of what the GOP majority advocates. It will grow government with a new layer.
Clements called Danielle Waltz, representing the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, to testify to the committee. Watlz said the U.S. Chamber supports an intermediate West Virginia court for three reasons: to modernize the state’s court system, to give businesses a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and to improve the business climate.
Waltz said that the chamber’s annual Harris Poll indicated 87% of businesses surveyed said a state’s legal climate affects their decision to do business there.
Upon grilling by court opponents, she said that specifically in West Virginia, 87 attorneys representing clients who do business in the state and were sued here provided poll data.
Sen. Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, asked her how many of those 87 were West Virginia businesses and how many were out of state. She didn’t know.
Woelfel said he used TO favor the bill, but he’s been representing plaintiffs in opioid suits against the likes of McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, and if they’re the kind of companies answering the survey, he doesn’t care about their opinion.
Sen. Paul Hardesty, D-Logan, said he previously ran a large pro-business lobbying firm, and worked for the state Commerce Department. No companies in southern in Southern West Virginia have said they need an intermediate court, he said, and no one ever told Commerce that lack of one was an obstacle.
The true obstacles, he said, are lack of sites with flat ground, lack of air service, poor infrastructure, lack of education. “At some point we’ve got to stop listening to out-of-state people telling us in West Virginia what we need.”
Senate Majority Leader Tom Takubo, R-Kanawha, supported the bill. The Senate has worked vigorously to address opioids and job training, he said. This court may not be the be-all-end-all answer. “It could be an important piece of the puzzle.”
Woelfel moved to table the bill, but that failed 7-10. The bill passed in a voice vote – which probably would have been 10-7 in a roll call – and will go to Finance.
Tweet David Beard @dbeardtdp Email dbeard@dominionpost.com
