CHARLESTON, W.Va. — In fairness, the House of Delegates did discuss some matters of West Virginia policy on Wednesday.
But that was after a thwarted motion to skip a major committee on an controversial bill and between moves by a single delegate to force bills to be read in their entirety.
If ever the old line about seeing the sausage being made came close to truth, this was the day.
The main feature that caused the floor session stand out for Day 36 of this regular session was the repeated insistence by Delegate Eric Porterfield, R-Mercer, for bills to be read in their entirety.
There were nine bills up for final passage in the House, and Porterfield spared just a couple of them. This lasted about an hour.
Once those were done, Porterfield rose and made a motion for all bills on amendment stage be read aloud. That attempt was defeated by everyone but Porterfield, who later withdrew the motion.
Porterfield was a lightning rod this time last year when he first used a slur about sexuality during a committee meeting and later indicated in a local television interview that if he had a gay son or daughter, “I just want to make sure they could swim.”
Usually, bills are discussed on the floor after a motion for them to be explained in lieu of being read. Then a lawmaker familiar with the bill will discuss what it does in regular language.
But if a delegate objects to the motion, then the bills — sometimes quite long — must be read in their entirety. This can take a while.
Porterfield sat in his corner seat while other delegates milled about, making conversation — some smiling and some grimacing. The House clerk read through the bills at top verbal speed, generally not in a way resulting in comprehension.
Reading bills in their entirety in the @WVHouse. A lot of milling about. Delegate Porterfield objected to “explain the bill in lieu of being read.” https://t.co/PCP0OcMzxu
— Brad McElhinny (@BradMcElhinny) February 12, 2020
When the clerk finished, bills were then discussed. Judiciary Chairman John Shott described one of his turns at explanation as being “for those of you who didn’t pick up on the text of the bill” after it was speed-read.
The procedural maneuver is sometimes used by delegates who want to make a point about procedure or policy.
Porterfield didn’t announce his beef, but some sort of situation has been brewing with him this week.
As described by a story in The Charleston Gazette-Mail, Porterfield at the end of Tuesday’s floor session claimed he had been in a verbal altercation the prior evening with a fellow Republican delegate. In his remarks on the House floor, he alleged that delegate had been inebriated.
Porterfield said he had taken his concerns to the Capitol Police and House leadership, urging further action against the delegate. He said the dispute with the other delegate had to do with Porterfield’s stance on a bill involving PEIA benefits.
“We’re here to make laws,” said Porterfield, who is blind. “We’re here to do things the right way. …If I had treated someone with a disability — a member of this House with a disability the way I was treated last night, I would want someone to take action against me. I think there needs to be further action taken on this.”
In a statement he emailed out after the floor session, he essentially confirmed that’s what was bothering him. But, he said, there’s no indication that House leadership has responded to his concerns.
So the frustration spilled out into the House’s business.
“I reserve the right to continue to exercise this right,” Porterfield stated.
Former Delegate Mike Folk, now running for governor, was at the House of Delegates on Wednesday. Folk had attempted similar procedural maneuvers during his years as a delegate and, at one point Wednesday, walked over to Porterfield’s desk to advise him to knock it off.
“I mean, as someone who has used this rule I simply said his rationale for doing this — which is basically that his feelings were hurt — is total (bovine waste),” Folk later explained.
Porterfield, at the next opportunity, rose and made a motion for Folk’s floor privileges to be permanently revoked, objecting to the language.
That motion was voted down with only Porterfield and Delegates Tom Fast and Roy Cooper in favor.
Delegate Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, later engaged Porterfield. He asked if Porterfield would like any coffee, tea or water — hoping the result might require Porterfield to leave his seat, leading to an end of the bill-reading cycle.
The floor session began with Delegate Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, making a motion to bypass a second committee reference for a bill that would prohibit West Virginia’s National Guard reservists from serving in non-declared war zones.
The “Defend the Guard Act” was voted out of the House Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, 15-7, after a 15-minute discussion on Tuesday afternoon.
Some delegates voted in favor of moving the bill out of that committee while saying there are additional legal issues that needed to be discussed in its next destination, the House Judiciary Committee.
“I voted in favor of the bill going out of committee, but I have not had an opportunity to read the cases that were cited,” said Delegate Barbara Fleischauer, D-Monongalia.
“I want to make sure I’m correct in my analysis. I think it deserves more study. I think there are more fiscal issues at risk than I realized. It needs to be vetted more. I am opposed to the gentleman’s motion, unfortunately.”
Delegate Tom Bibby, R-Berkeley, also objected to speeding that bill along.
“I was in support of the bill until I had time this past weekend to review all aspects of this,” Bibby said.
“My concerns are more toward the constitutional issues and what I perceive as putting our governor in position of having to break U.S. law.”
The bill would require an official declaration of war or an action to call up state militia by the United States Congress before members of the West Virginia National Guard could be released from state control to participate in active duty combat.
Objections have been raised that the West Virginia National Guard could lose significant federal funding if the bill were to pass.
McGeehan wanted to go ahead and vote for the bill on the House floor. He said the timing would put the bill up for passage by Monday, giving the weekend for anyone who would like to further research the issues.
“I don’t think we need the lawyers delving into it,” McGeehan told delegates. “I think people pretty well have their minds made up.”
His motion needed a two-thirds supermajority and didn’t get it.
It was voted down 61-37 with two absences, clearing the path minutes later for Porterfield’s slog.