Quantcast

WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Organization wants lawmakers to continue working on intermediate court after bill dies in House

Hot Topics
Wvstatecapitolflag

CHARLESTON —Americans for Prosperity-West Virginia is disappointed that lawmakers decided to vote against legislation that would have created an intermediate appellate court in the state.

The bill was voted down March 7 with a 56-44 tally.

AFP-WV State Director Jason Huffman called the bill's defeat a major step back in equal justice.

“It is highly disappointing that some lawmakers chose to play political games with citizens’ due process and the structure of our judiciary," Huffman said in a statement provided to The West Virginia Record. "The defeat of this bill is a major step back for equal justice for all and common-sense government."

Huffman said the judicial branch needed changes.

"It’s far beyond time that the legislature made good on establishing a well-functioning judicial branch, one of the main priorities government should provide," Huffman said.

Huffman said the current system has flaws.

"The fact of the matter is our current judicial system is innately flawed," Huffman said. "Our citizens deserve better. We will continue to fight for a judicial system that makes sense in the Mountain State and we’ll hold lawmakers accountable who stand in the way of doing what’s right for every West Virginian."

AFP-WV supported creating the intermediate appellate court, which was Senate Bill 275 in the current session. AFP-WV believed the intermediate appellate court would help bring fairness to the state's judicial system.

The organization said it would continue to urge lawmakers to continue work on establishing an intermediate appellate court.

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.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News