HB 2003 is on its way to the House of Delegates floor. The new bill clarifies state of preparedness vs. state of emergency; powers of the governor vs. power of the Legislature during each; and how long each would last.
The key part of the legislation, which has bipartisan support, is this phrase that occurs twice, once each under the sections for state of preparedness and state of emergency: “The Legislature may also condition, limit, terminate, or expand any action or directive made either by the proclamation of the Governor relating to the state of emergency [or state of preparedness] or any executive order issued as a result of such proclamation.”
Basically, the Legislature can override the governor. This is an obvious response to last summer when Gov. Justice refused to call the Legislature into special session and instead doled out CARES Act dollars himself, single-handedly deciding what money went where.
Lawmakers and residents across the state took issue with Justice’s seemingly unchecked power during the state of emergency he called for the COVID-19 pandemic. We at The Dominion Post were particularly irritated by Justice’s proposal to funnel CARES money into road repairs when our hospitals, health departments, schools and small businesses were — and are — still struggling. We desperately needed legislative oversight this past summer and now lawmakers are ensuring that oversight exists for the future.
There were two amendments to HB 2003. One ultimately failed, but the other passed.
We don’t understand the sudden 180 on the amendment to specify this bill applies to the current state of emergency (aka, the COVID-19 pandemic): “Upon passage, any state of emergency or state of preparedness currently in effect are subject to the provisions of this section.” We reported last Sunday that the proposed amendment passed, and on Monday it had been rejected. Some Republicans on the committee say the language is unnecessary; Democrats say Republicans are caving to pressure from the governor. We’re not picking a side, but we did wonder: Particularly when it comes to legislation, isn’t it better to be as explicit as possible?
While that amendment was rejected, a different one passed: “The emergency powers granted under this section do not authorize the Governor to close or dictate religious practices in a house of worship during a state of preparedness or state of emergency.”
This one leaves us with mixed feelings. When the state of emergency or preparedness is for a disaster, like a flood or a tornado or an aerial strike, then leaving houses of worship open is fine. The only people who can be hurt by the decision to attend worship are the people who go to a house of worship. But when the state of emergency is for a public health threat — like a pandemic — then one person’s decision to go to a house of worship can harm others. A person who attends church, contracts a contagious illness while there and then goes to a grocery store or another public place has now endangered everyone with whom he/she comes into contact.
Of course, all this may be a moot point. In November 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on religious gatherings. If that ruling is meant to be the national standard, then the passed amendment is nothing more than posturing for a particular constituency.
We’ll see how this all plays out if HB 2003 is passed into law.
