CHARLESTON – An amended bill that would create a new intermediate appellate court is being heard by the House of Delegates.
The House Finance Committee passed Senate Bill 275 on March 24. It had its first reading March 26 in the full House.
In committee, the House changed the Senate version of the bill. Instead of the Senate plan for two districts, the House version only has one district. That also trims the estimated initial budget from nearly $8 million to about $3.6 million and the continuing annual cost from about $5.7 million to $2.1 million.
Mani
The Senate also had the judges serving 12-year terms, like those of the state Supreme Court justices. The House version changes that to 10-year terms.
The new intermediate court would review civil cases between the circuit court and Supreme Court. It also would review workers’ comp cases and final orders from family courts.
At first, the judges would be appointed to staggered terms. Their salary would be $142,000 per year. Hearings are expected to take place in current public offices, so no new building would be needed.
“I am pleased to see consideration of Senate Bill 275 again this year, and the important recognition by the Legislature and governor of creating an intermediate court in West Virginia,” attorney Danielle Waltz told The West Virginia Record. Waltz is a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, which owns The Record.
“Passage of the bill would provide a level of predictability in the court system, including increased review of West Virginia statutes and rules, and it would allow West Virginia to join the overwhelming majority of states having such a court.”
The president of a statewide group for trial attorneys still opposes the plan.
“Governor (Jim) Justice and legislators claim that they want to freeze our state budget for three years, eliminate frivolous spending and reduce the size of our state government,” West Virginia Association for Justice President Jonathan Mani told The Record. “The proposed intermediate court violates both of those promises. It will make our state government bigger, cost us millions every year, and is unnecessary. It is fiscally irresponsible to create this new appellate court when case appeals have declined more than 70 percent over the last 20 years.
“Lawmakers pushing this bill to appease the billion-dollar, national corporate special interests and their lobbyists who are demanding an intermediate court. They want to low-ball and delay claims, increasing their corporate profits on the backs of West Virginia taxpayers.
“West Virginians are facing enough challenges without shelling out our money to help pad corporate bank accounts. The Legislature should reject SB 275 and take care of West Virginians first.”
Americans for Prosperity-West Virginia also supports the bill.
“A well-functioning judiciary ensures that every citizen receives equal justice under the law,” Director Jason Huffman said. “Sadly, our current judicial system fails at this due to a lack of sufficient conclusiveness in appellate review. West Virginians deserve a compete justice system that is predictable, fair, and conclusive.
“Despite well-meaning but ultimately ineffective rule changes made by the state Supreme Court in an attempt ensure equal justice for individuals, that fact remains that many rulings by that body are truncated to the point of inadequacy.”
Huffman said the lack of signed opinions from the state Supreme Court deprives citizens of “truly equal justice because these opinions do not have authoritative precedential value.”
“This status quo does not achieve the ultimate ends of our judicial system,” he said. “The right of appeal is meaningless without the assurance of adequately robust decisions.
“Further, in recent years, it has become apparent that the highly centralized nature of West Virginia’s judicial system has put our state and its citizens at a disadvantage.
“Anecdotal examples show us circuit courts operating as activists rather than unbiased jurors in a system where our citizens’ court cases never reach a conclusive end. Poor decisions are made by lower courts inside the context that those rulings may never be given a fair amount of scrutiny.”
