Lawmakers want you to see a “letter” by each name seeking a judicial seat on a ballot. Senate Bill 521 is summarized in the state’s legislative tracking system as a measure “requiring party affiliations be listed for all candidates.” But a full reading reveals it does much more – far more in fact. The legislation, on amendment stage Monday in the Senate, would:
End nonpartisan judicial elections for the West Virginia Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Circuit Courts, reverting to a partisan system. Candidates would run in party primaries in May, with nominees advancing to the general election in November. Nonpartisan judicial elections were enacted in 2015 (taking effect in 2016) by a Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law by then-Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat. Republicans supported and implemented this process. So what has changed?
Make Family Court and magistrate races partisan contests again, also requiring primary elections in May.
Alter the election process in judicial circuits with numbered divisions. Each division would be tallied separately, with the candidate receiving the most votes declared the party nominee. The bill repeals the runoff mechanism previously established under the nonpartisan model – perhaps because runoffs mitigate plurality electoral outcomes, something at least some current lawmakers seem to prefer to majority outcomes.
During a recent appearance on Talkline, Senator Eric Tarr (R-Putnam) expressed his enthusiasm for the bill, stating, “I love this bill. When I go to vote, I want to know if I’m voting for a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t care if they’re mayor, judge, senator or whatever. There are ideological differences.”
Tarr is not wrong, voters want to understand candidates’ positions and those often align with party ideology. But judges are not legislators; their role requires impartiality and allegiance to the rule of law, not party politics or ideology. They interpret the law, and remedies exist if judges go beyond that duty.
Shifting back to a partisan model does little, if anything, to address concerns about ideology influencing court decisions. There is no test for party membership, no burden of proof to establish a candidate’s conservative or liberal credentials before receiving party membership. Candidates may simply declare a party affiliation and run. No scrutiny or evaluation of works required to join the party. It’s not hard to get a letter by your name.
If enacted, this bill would lead to redundant elections, shorten the transition period for elected attorneys moving from private practice to the bench, and further politicize the judiciary. But make no mistake – if a judicial candidate leans liberal or conservative or is outright far left or right, opposing campaigns and the vast tools of modern communication (paid or earned) will ensure that voters know. Changing the election format does nothing to alter that reality.
Meanwhile, the state’s nearly 300,000 independent voters (25 percent of registered voters) would find themselves further penalized for choosing not to affiliate with a political party. That’s not the case under current law.
Notably, under the proposed bill, Board of Education races in West Virginia would remain unaffected continuing to elect candidates on a non-partisan basis. Changing these races to partisan elections would require a constitutional amendment on the ballot.