Last Friday, the West Virginia Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision on the question of the state Senate vacancy created by the resignation of Daniel Hall. He was elected as a Democrat in 2012, but then flipped to Republican in 2014. Republicans and Democrats disagreed over which party should be represented by his replacement.
The speculation prior to the court’s decision ran the gamut, and many wondered aloud whether politics would play a role in the opinion. The stakes were high since the Republicans held a narrow 17-16 advantage. That one seat would either solidify the Republican majority or throw the Senate into political deadlock.
Chief Justice Menis Ketchum and Justices Margaret Workman and Robin Davis are Democrats, while Justice Allen Loughry is a Republican. (Justice Brent Benjamin, a Republican, recused himself.)
The court by three to one vote (Ketchum, Workman and Loughry in favor, Davis opposed) found that Hall’s replacement should be a Republican. Governor Tomblin followed the court’s directive quickly and appointed Sue Davis to the seat. Read the story here.
Workman authored the decision for the majority, striking a rational and reasoned tone. She focused on the most relevant code section which says the Governor shall make the appointment from a list of three legally qualified persons submitted by the party executive committee of the party with which the person holding the office immediately preceding the vacancy was affiliated [Emphasis added].”
Workman called that language “clear and unambiguous.” She also rebuffed the argument by lawyers for the Democrat Party and Governor Tomblin who insisted the code section, when considered in its entirety, could be interpreted differently.
“Their reading of the statute is profoundly strained and constitutes a misreading of the statutory language that is clear in is meaning,” Workman wrote. “This court will not alter the text in order to satisfy the policy preferences of the petitioners.”
Justice Workman also put an exclamation point on the decision by emphasizing that the court’s job is to apply the statue, not substitute its own interpretation. “Our decision is grounded in law, not ideology or politics.”
Justice Ketchum also cast politics aside in his brief concurring opinion: “I realize that my vote in this case effectively eliminates any chance of my being reelected to our Supreme Court. Nevertheless, I took an oath to impartially apply our laws and I promised to set political favoritism aside. The statute in this case is clear.”
(Justice Davis’ dissent was not filed Friday, but she stated during arguments she believed there were serious questions about the constitutionality of the statute.)
An independent judiciary is absolutely critical to public confidence. It’s essential that courts consistently engage in fair and impartial review, while resisting the temptation to insert personal preference or legislate from the bench.
This court should be commended for how it handled the thorny and politically-charged vacancy issue.