It’s going to be a down-to-the-wire finish this legislative session on the bill that would create an intermediate court of appeals in West Virginia. Just three days remain in the regular session, and the critical House of Delegates vote on SB 275 will likely come Friday.
The intermediate court would provide another level to hear appeals after circuit court and before the state Supreme Court. As the bill stands now, this new court would consider appeals in civil lawsuits, family court decisions, workers comp cases and also criminal appeals.
(Read more on the bill from Brad McElhinny.)
Republican leaders and business organizations have been pushing the appeals court idea for several years now. Publicly they argue that adding another level of review would improve legal certainty in the state.
More specifically, the business community is worried about a massive financial judgement against a company that only gets a cursory review by the state Supreme Court on appeal. Their argument is that risk inhibits business investment in the state.
Republicans got the bill through the Senate 18-14-2, but they lost two Republican votes. The outlook in the House is uncertain. Predicting votes on controversial bills is more art than science, and neither bill supporters nor opponents are confident they know what is going to happen.
Republicans have a 58-41 advantage with one independent in the House, but not all Republicans are on board, for several reasons.
It’s estimated the new court would cost $8.5 million the first year and $7.2 million in subsequent years. A few of the Republicans just do not like the idea of creating another level of government and adding more base budget spending while trying to balance a tight budget with myriad needs.
Reluctant Republicans also question whether the new court is really a priority. I’m told that a few rural legislators have told lobbyists that the issue simply does not resonate in their community. No one is coming up to them in the grocery story to complain about the lack of an intermediate court.
Another problem for bill proponents is that there has been no outrageous or headline grabbing damage award by a jury recently that then failed to be reviewed by the state Supreme Court. Ironically, a jackpot justice award during the session would have given bill supporters a powerful talking point for passage.
Advocates for this new court may still be able to drag this bill across the line, but it’s hard to say. They may be anywhere from five to ten votes short as of now, but these things have a way of being very fluid, especially in the closing days of the session when there is plenty of horse trading taking place.