Delegates are swiftly moving a bill that would allow an upcoming appointment to the state Supreme Court remain in place until the 2024 election.
The House introduced House Bill 4785 Tuesday and the House Judiciary Committee passed it today.
Supporters said the switch will allow for greater stability on the court. Skeptics said elections, even in short order, are the best way to assure public confidence.
The bill makes a small change to say the governor’s appointment would stand if the unexpired term is no more than three years.
But the implications could be significant for whoever is selected to replace departing Justice Evan Jenkins, who announced his departure Feb. 4 for a term that would have concluded in 2024.
Under current law, the governor would appoint a justice to serve until the general election next fall.
The winner of that special election would serve until the regular term that Jenkins vacated is up. That regular election would be in 2024.
So the appointee or whoever would have won the 2022 special election conceivably could have been on the ballot twice in short order.
The House proposal would change that to assure whoever the governor appoints would serve until the seat would have been up for election anyway in 2024.
“Our courts need continuity, predictability, consistency. Our appointees need to be focused on the rule of law, not necessarily elections,” said Delegate Tom Fast, R-Fayette, speaking in favor of the bill.
“So I believe this bill seeks to allow our appointees to have some time to get in their office, to be a good judge or justice and settle on the rule of law and not necessarily have to be focused on elections.”
Delegate Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, disagreed with that interpretation, noting that other officeholders like delegates often have to run for office without much time between elections.
“Anyone who just put their name on the ballot now has to run in November. They would have the same amount of time to prepare for that as anybody else,” Pushkin said.
“I think what’s greater is allowing the people to have a say-so in the judicial branch.”
Delegate Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell, made a similar point.
“My concern with the bill is we’re removing a check of the ballot,” Lovejoy said. “The people would have their say in November. If we change it, the people would have no say for over two years until 2024. I think elections are good.”
House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, issued a statement in favor of the change Tuesday, saying it would also apply to similar situations in the future.
“The Constitution provides for the Legislature to determine how these vacancies are to be filled. The purpose of House Bill 4785 is to ensure continuity of the court for the remainder of this term and to address similar situations when they arise in the future,” Hanshaw stated.