CHARLESTON – The House of Delegates narrowly defeated the bill that would have created an intermediate court of appeals.
The House voted against the bill 56-44 after a lengthy final debate regarding Senate Bill 275. Several Republicans. Following the vote, House Minority Leader Tim Miley (D-Harrison) requested to reconsider the vote, which also was voted down, ending any chance of the bill being resurrected in the final two days of the session.
“We’ve had people talk about why they don’t want this bill to pass,” Miley said during the debate before the final vote. “But what you didn’t hear was anyone in support of this bill. Proctor & Gamble didn’t care about an intermediate appellate court. … Intuit didn’t let a lack of an intermediate appellate court deter them. I don’t think is a job creator.
“We passed a bill to put it (the current state Supreme Court rule of issuing a ruling on every appeal) in statute, but the Senate wouldn’t run the bill. Now, they want us to run their pet projects.
“If the Supreme Court came and said they needed help, this wouldn’t be debatable. We’d do it. But, they’re caught up. When the day and time comes that this is needed, we should implement. I don’t think that time is now, and I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.”
Others spoke in favor of the bill.
“Everyone is entitled to a full and meaningful right of appeal, and we’re told we have that now,” House Judiciary Chairman John Shott (R-Mercer) said. “And we do, but it’s bsed on a whim. Three members of that (Supreme) Court, at any time, can change that rule.
“Our constitution gives us a path to a clear right of appeal. We’re authorized to create an intermediate court of appeals. … It’s long past time for us to implement an intermediate court of appeals and fully guarantee our constituents a full and meaningful right of appeal.”
If passed, the bill would have created a new appeals court to hear most civil cases before the state Supreme Court. It also would have heard most criminal appeals, conservatorship and guardianship cases, and rulings from family court, administrative agencies and the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. It also would have eliminated the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. It would have had two districts with three judges on each half.
The Supreme Court would have decided which appeals it would consider and which it would reject, sending them to the new court.
Similar bills have been considered in recent years. Last year, a bill to create the intermediate court also passed the state Senate, but died in the House.
On Feb. 10, the state Senate voted 18-14-2 to pass the bill. The House, unlike previous years, advanced the measure. The House Judiciary and Finance committees passed the bill with changes, and the full House added more changes March 5 on second reading.
In early February, the House passed a bill clarifying that appeals to the state Supreme Court are a matter of right and shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court and that a written decision will be issued. The bill would include that language in state code.