CHARLESTON – Gov. Patrick Morrisey has vetoed a bill that would have provided pay raises to state Supreme Court justices and other judges.
He said the House Bill 3111 was unfair.
“I respect the valuable public service provided by our judges and justices, and I am open to increasing the judicial branch compensation, but that should be pursued in conjunction with pay raises for other members of the judicial branch and other state employees,” Morrisey wrote in his April 30 letter explaining his veto. “We have many hard-working public employees who are instrumental to the health, safety and success of our state, such as our teachers, police officers, CPS workers, park superintendents and road construction crews who are not included in this bill.”
Lorensen
| File photo
When the bill was introduced, it included a $3,500 raise for magistrates, circuit court judges and family court judges. But the state Senate reworked the bill and removed the raise for magistrates and provided raises of $15,000 for family court judges as well as $10,000 for Supreme Court justices, Intermediate Court judges and circuit court judges that would be spread over two years beginning in July 2026.
Circuit Judge Michael D. Lorensen is president of the West Virginia Judicial Association.
“Obviously, we are disappointed,” said Lorensen, who is a circuit judge for Berkeley and Morgan counties in the Eastern Panhandle. “But we are pleased we had some legislators who listened to our issues and concerns. It is worth noting that our salaries are set by statute, so the across the board increases for state employees did not apply to elected judges.
“But again, we are immensely grateful to the legislators who were receptive to the idea. I am sure the governor did this in good faith and was doing what is in the best interests of the state. But like with everyone else, time marches on and things don’t get cheaper for us either. Health insurance goes up. The price of everything is going up.”
The president of the West Virginia Family Court Judicial Administration also praised the Legislature’s efforts and was disappointed in the final outcome.
“We agree with the governor that there are many hardworking West Virginians who deserve higher pay,” Judge Heather Wood said. “However, West Virginia judges remain among the lowest paid in the country, with family court judges at the very bottom.
“Unlike other state employees, judges have not received regular salary increases even as PEIA costs rise yearly. The salary increases proposed in HB 3111 were largely offset by another provision of the bill providing a holiday on state contributions to the judicial retirement system which would have saved $1.2 million per year.
“Regardless of the outcome, we will continue to work hard for West Virginia families. We hope that this important issue can be revisited again next year and that adjustments consistent with the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Commission will be considered.”
While he supported the pay raises, House of Delegates Speaker Roger Hanshaw says he thinks legislators can come back later with a better bill.
“When the bill left the House it had our county magistrates in it,” Hanshaw (R-Clay) told MetroNews. “They were included in the final version which we were going to have to do anyway.
“I’m not necessarily deterred by this. We’ll get back to it the next time we’re together.”
In an opinion piece posted early in this year's regular session, Kanawha County Family Court Judge Jim Douglas said family court judge salaries are an injustice. He also notes West Virginia family court judges' pay ranks 52nd among U.S. territories, even behind American Samoa and North Mariana Islands.
"This glaring disparity not only undervalues the essential work performed by family court judges, but also, threatens the integrity and effectiveness of the family court system in West Virginia," Douglas wrote. "Addressing this inequity is crucial to ensuring the retention of experienced judges, attracting qualified candidates and demonstrating the state’s commitment to prioritizing the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens – children.
"Family law cases are among the most emotionally laden and legally complex matters heard in any court. Family court judges routinely preside over cases involving child custody, contempts, modifications, parenting plans, divorce, separation, allocations, paternity, initial and delinquent child support, alimony and domestic violence. These cases require a family court judge to balance the competing interests of parents while ensuring the best interests of the children involved.
"Circuit court judges, though delegated important matters such as criminal and civil litigation, and the worst case scenarios of child abuse and neglect, do not deal with the same day-to-day level of deeply personal and emotive issues that define family law practice."