Sen. Mike Stuart, R-Kanawha, speaks in support of a bill that would make judicial races partisan in West Virginia. (Will Price | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
The state’s Republican-dominant Senate approved a measure that would require judicial elections to become partisan races, with the bill sponsor saying West Virginians are “concerned about liberal judges slipping through the cracks.”
Opponents of the bill argued it would inject politics into judicial races — a role that should be guided by the law, not political ideology.
In 2016, when Republicans took control of the state House and Senate, lawmakers made all judicial races in the state nonpartisan.
“Now we’re moving our clocks back 10 years, which makes no sense to me,” said Sen. Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, who voted for the 2016 measure. “Why is it that you want to politicize judicial elections?”
Senate Bill 521, sponsored by Sen. Tom Willis, R-Berkeley, would require that the political party affiliation of candidates be listed in the state Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit court judge, family court judge and magistrate primary and general elections.
Willis said it can be difficult for voters to find information on judicial candidates.
“The proposition that judges are above the political fray is not consistent with the facts we see on the news every single day,” Willis said Wednesday on the Senate floor. “To maintain the integrity of our courts system, we need to make sure that we’re electing judges that are going to respect the constitution [and] the rule of law.”
The bill passed with a 22-12 vote, with 10 Republicans joining the Senate’s two Democratic members to oppose the measure.
“Judicial officers are different than other politicians. We want them to be above the political fray,” said Woelfel, who is Senate Minority Leader. “You’re doing a disservice to voters who I say are very informed and you’re putting politics into judicial races.”
Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, voted against the measure, saying he voted to make the races nonpartisan when the Senate passed the measure in 2016.
“We saw that need to remove that taint of politics,” Weld said. “I don’t know who’s asking for this bill.”
State Supreme Court Justice Beth Walker previously testified in opposition to the bill, saying she was one of the few people who had been a candidate in a partisan and nonpartisan election.
“What we do as judges is not political. When you take nonpartisan away and inject partisan politics into the election of judges, it calls into question that very important fairness, impartiality, and neutrality,” she told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee when they were vetting the bill.
Willis argued that placing an “R” by a judicial candidates’ name would help voters know a judge’s ideology regarding issues like religion, taxes, labor, individual freedom and more.
“If you don’t think there’s a difference between liberal and conservative judges, you’re just not being honest,” he said. “People come into these jobs with an ideology.”
Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, pushed back on that, saying judges shouldn’t be applying a political ideology while making a ruling.
“The judge applies the law, not whether they like the law,” Garcia said. “A judge cannot come in and say, ‘I don’t like higher taxes, I’m going to give you a break this time … We want judges to be fair.”
Sen. Mike Stuart, R-Kanawha, said the bill was “a gift to voters,” who may not know candidates, better understand their choices on Election Day.
“What people want is either a liberal or conservative on the court,” he said. “Partisan politics, that’s the least of our concerns on this issue. It’s to try to help voters understand who they’re voting for … there’s no question, voters are confused.”
The measure would put in place partisan primaries in the primary election and a partisan general election to decide for the judicial races.
Board of education elections would remain nonpartisan.
The bill now goes to the House of Delegates for consideration.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.