CHARLESTON – State Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Trump feels so strongly about the creation of an intermediate appellate court that he took time to go to a House of Delegates public hearing to share his thoughts.
“One of the things we’re good at in West Virginia, because we do it often, is we ask experts for advice and then we ignore the advice we get,” Trump (R-Morgan) said when it was his turn to speak Feb. 27 during the public hearing in the House chambers.
The House Judiciary Committee begins discussions Feb. 28 about Senate Bill 275. Similar bills have passed the Senate in recent years only to fade in the House.
Waltz
Supporters, such as Trump, hope it’s different this session.
“There is cost. But justice is not free. We have to invest,” Trump said, referring to the estimated annual cost of more than $6 million. “Having a fair thorough, efficient predictable system of justice and appellate review is good for all the citizens of West Virginia.”
Trump also said the new court would benefit the state Supreme Court.
“Our Supreme Court is on this hamster wheel they put themselves on by requiring themselves to issue opinions in every single case,” he said. “It’s not the … best use of their talent and skills, and it should go back to a discretionary docket for cases that arise from an intermediate appellate court, giving them the chance to address public policy issues.”
Others also spoke in favor of the creation of the new court.
Others spoke in favor of the intermediate court.
Danielle Waltz, a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, said West Virginia needs to join the majority of states that have such a court. (Editor’s Note: The ILR owns The West Virginia Record.)
“West Virginians are wonderful people, but we sometimes don’t like change,” Waltz said during the public hearing. “It is overdue to create an intermediate court of appeals. Finally stop this debate after 20 years.”
The executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse said the court would help remedy the state’s legal reputation
“We remain on the Judicial Hellhole watchlist, and one of the reasons for that is because we do not have an intermediate court of appeals,” Jordan Burgess said.
The West Virginia Chamber weighed in as well.
“Many of our circuit courts have a significant backlog, and that limits all parties’ access to speedy trials,” said Brian Dayton, the state Chamber’s vice president of policy and advocacy. “Strong appellate review boosts confidence that our courts will apply the law consistently throughout the state. This court would free up the Supreme Court to dedicate time to consider and write opinions that have a definite impact on the law and public policy.”
Others spoke up against the measure.
“This is simply another attempt to please big money business interests,” said West Virginia AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Andy Walters. “The Legislature will have created another unneeded layer of government at taxpayer expense.”
Other opponents discussed the cost to create the new court.
“We have limited funds and already face future deficits,” citizen advocate Betty Rivard said. “Please oppose this unnecessary funds and invest the funds where they are critically needed.”
West Virginia ACLU Executive Director Joseph Cohen said his group’s main problem with the measure is that the new court wouldn’t hear criminal matters.
“People facing the complete loss of liberty and freedom of movement are explicitly denied,” he said. “Criminal defendants have so much more to lose than civil defendants. Insurance companies are afforded more protections than people who face being locked in cages.”
Julie Archer from West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections said outside lobbying groups are pushing the idea of the court on the state.
“Special-interest groups spending big bucks on these elections see the Supreme Court as an effective vehicle to further their political, ideological and financial agendas,” Archer said. “Why would this new court be any different? Courts are powerful, and they matter. Their rulings impact our health, our freedom and our bank accounts. Don’t let powerful interests have their way.”
Speaking on MetroNews’ “Talkline” statewide radio program, Waltz again said it’s time to make the intermediate court a reality.
“This is not a new debate,” she told host Hoppy Kercheval. “In fact, we’ve been talking about it for 20 years. The reasons haven’t changed. We need to modernize our court system. We need to give our litigants a full and fair opportunity to be hear. And we need to continue to improve our business climate here in West Virginia.”
Charleston attorney Tony Majestro, former president of the West Virginia Association for Justice, said the state could use the money for more dire needs.
“We’ve been talking about it for 20 years, but a lot has changed in 20 years,” Majestro told Kercheval. “The Supreme Court’s docket is a fraction of what it used to be. Since 2009 when they first started talking about this, appeals have declined an entire 40 percent.
“Our state is a small state with decreasing population. The Supreme Court is caught up on its docket and handling all of the appeals. We have better uses for that money.”
Waltz countered by saying the new court would benefit other courts that do have backlogs.
“As this bill is drafted this year, it actually takes some of the appeals that are going to circuit court right now,” Waltz said. “It takes that directly to the intermediate court. There is a significant backlog in many of the circuit courts here in West Virginia.”
With the passage of SB 275, the new court would hear most civil appeals from circuit courts instead of them going straight to the Supreme Court. It would have two districts with three judges on each half.
The intermediate court would hear appeals in civil cases, conservatorship and guardianship cases, and rulings from family court, administrative agencies and the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. If the bill passes, it would eliminate the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges.
The Supreme Court would decide which appeals it would consider and which it would reject, sending them to the new court. Two exceptions would be an appeal that involves a question of fundamental public importance or if time is an issue making the appeal require immediate consideration.
After the first judges being appointed by the governor, judges would be added to the court through elections starting in 2022. The terms would be staggered for 10 years, and the pay would be $130,000 annually.
