CHARLESTON – The state Senate has passed a bill that would return partisanship to West Virginia judicial elections.
Senate Bill 521 passed March 12 on a 22-12 vote. It would require party affiliations to be listed for all candidates in judicial elections. If the measure passes the House of Delegates, the law would replace one pushed 10 years ago by Republicans to make all state judicial elections nonpartisan.
Republicans now have a 32-2 advantage in the state Senate, and they have more voters registered in the state than the Democratic Party. Now, the GOP says voters need party identification to better understand how judges might rule.
Stuart
| File photo
Sen. Mike Stuart (R-Kanawha) said the bill doesn’t politicize judicial elections.
“It’s so difficult for voters today to know who to vote for,” Stuart said during Wednesday’s floor debate. “That identifier, whether it’s Republican or Democrat, will tell them something. … That idea of Republican or Democrat may not perfectly align to the idea of conservative or liberal. But it at least gives voters some indication of folks they may not know.”
Stuart, who also is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he bets most West Virginians couldn’t have all five members of the state Supreme Court. But he says voters know whether they want a conservative or a liberal on the bench.
He noted the bill also moves judicial elections back to the same cycle as most other elections on the ballot with a primary and a general election.
“It moves it to the exact same cycle as the rest of us,” Stuart said. “Most of them expect elections to be in May and November. So there are a lot of good reasons here. Partisan politics? That’s the least of our concerns on this issue. It’s to try to help voters understand who they’re voting for. … The bill is a gift to the voters of West Virginia to be able to give them some idea of who they’re voting for when they go to the polls in May and November.”
Sen. Mike Woelfel (D-Cabell) is one of two Democrats in the state Senate. He noted the bill for nonpartisan elections passed the Senate 33-1 in 2015.
“I think the gift should be returned, whatever gift he’s talking about,” said Woelfel, who also is the Senate Minority Leader. “People know who are judges are. I don’t buy that for a minute that our voters are ignorant and ill-informed.
“If you say it hasn’t worked and we need to go back 10 years, what does that say about all of the judges who have been elected in the last 10 years?”
Woelfel said judicial officers should be above the political fray.
“Judicial officers are different from other politicians,” he said. “We want them to be neutral third parties that adjudicate disputes that end up in a courthouse.”
Senator Ryan Weld (R-Brooke) voted for nonpartisan judicial elections in 2015 when he was a member of the House of Delegates. He said he voted against the current bill for consistency’s sake.
“I haven’t had one person in my district walk up to me or email me and say, ‘You know, I just wish we had more partisan fights in judicial races,'” Weld said. “I really like getting those mailers, and I’d like to get some more.”
Weld said nonpartisan judicial elections were so important in 2015 that the new Republican majority made it one of the first issues it passed.
“It’s a good idea,” he said. “It makes sense. We’ve elected a pretty good judicial system in this state all on a nonpartisan basis.
“I don’t know who’s asking for this bill. I just cannot figure it out because of the difference between the two systems.”
Sen. Tom Willis (R-Berkeley) is the lead sponsor of the bill. He said the origin of the bill came from comments from his constituents who said it is difficult to find information on judicial candidates.
“Typically, all we know about some of these candidates is they went to this school, they work for this firm; now they’re running and that really doesn’t tell you anything,” Willis said. “And I think that the proposition that judges are above the political fray is just not consistent with the facts that we see on the news every single day.
“Now I think fortunately in West Virginia, we’re blessed that this virus of politicization in the judicial decisions that are handed down hasn’t infected us so much. But to maintain the integrity of our court system, we need to make sure that we’re electing judges that are going to respect the Constitution, that are going to respect the rule of law, and the voters have an idea who those judges are going to be.”
Willis added that it is often “extremely difficult for busy West Virginians to know who they’re voting for, to find information. A lot of these candidates are intentionally vague on their social media posts. Trust me, I’ve done the research myself.”
Sen. Joey Garcia (D-Marion) is the other Democrat in the Senate.
“It’s amazing to hear from some of the debate how little we think of our voters,” he said during the floor debate. “How little we think they can educate themselves. That they can talk to people in the community about the things that really matter about being a judge.
“What is their experience? How many years has someone practiced? What type of law did they do? … Are they a good lawyer? Are they a good community member?”
Garcia also mentioned current state Supreme Court Justice Beth Walker, who talked to the Judiciary Committee about the bill. Walker ran in a partisan Supreme Court race and a non-partisan race, and she is known as a conservative jurist.
“(Walker said) the nonpartisan election was such a better process to provide for that independence,” Garcia said. “And she said there are not Republican judges. There are not Democratic judges. There are judges.
“We want judges to be fair. We want judges to apply the law.”
Willis said the bill is a tool for voters to make smart decisions.
“It’s a way to keep liberal judges from slipping through the cracks,” he said. “And if you don’t think there’s a difference between liberal and conservative judges, you’re just not being honest. Have you seen the news for the past four years? …
“Voters are smart. They don’t have a lot of time to do a lot of research, but they’re smart. They’re smart. They understand that people come into these jobs with an ideology. We don’t live in a perfect world where you can honestly say somebody’s coming in without an ideology.”
Stuart said he has evolved on the issue.
“I was somebody who said from a Pollyanna standpoint, we need nonpartisan election of judges, that it will bring us what I call a better application of the law,” he said. “The bill is in favor of voters. In favor of the public. It restores West Virginia to the mistake we made a few years back. It helps voters get their arms around the idea of, at least some idea of, who they’re voting for.”