Delegate Patrick Lane Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

W.Va. House Amends Voter ID Bill

The House of Delegates will vote on a contentious piece of legislation Friday; a bill that would require West Virginians to show a form of identification at their polling place. But on Thursday, the bill saw a change on the floor.

House Bill 4013, the voter ID bill, would require West Virginia voters to show a photo ID or some kind of other official documentation to prove their identity before voting at the polls. A voter without proper documentation will be allowed to vote on a provisional ballot.

Supporters of the bill say it will help avoid voter fraud and make vote counting more reliable. But those opposed say it will keep people from the polls, bringing in another step to the voting process and possibly increase wait times.

Democrats proposed three amendments Thursday, but only one of them passed. That amendment was suggested by Delegate Mike Pushkin from Kanawha County.

His amendment allows someone over the age of 70 to renew their license at the DMV with a religious family heirloom to show proof of birth.

Republican Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County is the lead sponsor of the bill, and he says Pushkin’s amendment is good, because the DMV currently has a policy that allows people to bring in a family Bible as proof of birth.

“Delegate Pushkin’s concern, I think, was that Bible is a specific religious document, it identifies as specific religion, and there are obviously are provisions in our West Virginia State Constitution that prohibit recognizing a particular religion, and so his language provides a general religious document exception to that,” Lane said.

The voter ID bill will be up for a final vote in the House Friday.

House Considers Bill Requiring Photo IDs to Vote

Members of the House of Delegates are considering a bill to change voting requirements in West Virginia. The House Judiciary Committee discussed the bill at length Wednesday that would require voters to show a photo ID before casting a ballot.

For two hours Wednesday morning, the House Judiciary Committee discussed House Bill 4013, which would require a person in West Virginia who desires to vote to present a valid photo ID at the polls.

Those in support of this bill say it will help keep the voting system honest and avoid voter fraud. But those who oppose it say it impedes the constitutional right to vote; citing concerns that the more steps a person has to take, they’re less likely to make the effort to vote.

Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County is the Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and the lead sponsor of the bill. He says he doesn’t think the requirement of a photo ID will pose any issues.

“There haven’t been any widespread problems with it,” Lane explained, “There’s not been people turned away. If there have been problems, they’ve been dealt with on Election Day, and I would just suggest that the fact that we have in the language an opportunity to, for a person who shows up the poll without an ID to continue the process and cast their ballot on a provisional ballot ensures that everyone will be able to vote if they are a registered voter.”

The House Judiciary Committee continued the debate over House Bill 4013 for almost three more hours Wednesday afternoon, adopting or rejecting a number of amendments.

Those adopted included provisions to require the Secretary of State’s office to submit an annual report on any voting issues related to the IDs, another allowed for the use of an expired drivers license or passport, and another allowed for people to use valid Medicare or Medicaid cards or their social security card.

After opposition from Democratic committee members, the bill passed and was reported to the full House for consideration.

House Seeks to Strengthen Sexual Assault Laws at Schools

Members of the House Judiciary Committee are revisiting the state’s mandatory reporting law after an incident at Capital High School in Charleston. The school’s principal, Clinton Giles, resigned from his post after reports that he failed to notify law enforcement of a sexual assault on the high school’s campus. Giles was reportedly notified of the January 26th incident by a counselor, and he now faces misdemeanor charges in Kanawha County Circuit Court. The incident now has lawmakers looking to update a forty year old law dealing with sexual assaults. But first, the committee considered a bill that aims to reign in the receptions lawmakers are invited to while in Charleston for legislative meetings.

House Bill 2022 prohibits certain political fundraising activities for members of the Legislature during certain periods of time before, during, and after the Legislature is in session. It also provides that existing misdemeanor penalties would apply if the law were broken.

Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County is the sponsor of the bill. He says this bill addresses a long standing tradition during annual legislative sessions. That tradition of nightly receptions serving free food and drinks to lawmakers.

“I think the perception is a negative perception, that if we have a fundraising reception for a campaign on Tuesday and then there’s a bill that affects that, some particular industry on Thursday that we vote on, it’s unseemly,” Lane noted, “And I think, in an effort to make sure that there’s trust between the public and the elected officials, I think it’s a pretty simple fix to that, to just say that we as members of the legislature are gonna hold ourselves to a higher standard, and we’re gonna say we are not going to fundraise or accept money from campaign contributions, while we are here making decisions on legislation.”

No action was taken on House Bill 2022 during Thursday morning’s meeting.

The second bill on the agenda was House Bill 2939, relating to requirements for mandatory reporting of sexual offenses on school premises involving students.

“To better explain this, I’m going try and start with a little bit of background; explain what current law is, and then I’ll go into explaining a little bit what the original bill is, and then the reason behind the committee substitute. Since at least 1977, there’s been a reporting requirement for teachers or, in general, reporting of abuse, neglect matters for children; if they’ve been abused or neglect, and that’s defined in chapter 49. The requirements do extend to teachers and school personnel. In particular, the law states that a person over the age of 18, who receives a disclosure from a credible witness or who observes any sexual abuse, or sexual assault of a child, shall immediately, and not more than 48 hours, report that to the police and or to DHHR, Child Protective Services. That’s been the existing law for quite some time. The difficulty is, is when you get into the definitions of sexual abuse or sexual assault. Under existing law, sexual abuse is limited to abuse by parent, guardian, or custodian, so if you connect the dots here, the only reporting requirement that exists for a student that may or may not have been sexually abused on school is if that occurs by the parent, guardian, or custodian. Hence, there’s a little bit of a loophole in the law with respect to reporting requirements. So, taking current scenario under existing law, if you have a situation where an individual who is, a report comes to a teacher that their friend has been sexually assaulted on campus, and it was done say, by another student. Under existing law, there’s no requirement for that teacher to report that incident.” -Marty Wright, Counsel to House Judiciary

Marty Wright, counsel to House Judiciary, explained the bill and the reason the law needed some updating.

The bill brought some major discussion among the delegates, from what counted as inappropriate touching between two high school aged children, to how much a teacher would be held accountable in regard to various situations, or to how far the definition of what counted as school premises reached.

By the end of the meeting, three amendments were proposed that addressed these situations, and the bill was passed unanimously in committee.

House Bill 2939 now goes to the floor for its consideration.

House Judiciary Looks at Coal Jobs and Safety Act of 2015

House Judiciary took up a bill Tuesday that addresses mine safety. Senate Bill 357, also known as House Bill 2566, is the Coal Jobs and Safety Act of 2015. This is a big bill with many provisions, and House Judiciary considered a handful of amendments to it.

There were two amendments to the bill that stirred up some debate within the House Judiciary Committee. Amendment number 2, as the delegates called it, was an amendment proposed by Delegate Woody Ireland of Ritchie County.

Ireland’s amendment addresses when and how and who moves equipment within a coal mine. This amendment adjusts some language related to energized trolley wire, which is a way for miners to move large loads of equipment in shuttle cars.

Delegate Tim Manchin of Marion County proposed a rival amendment to Ireland’s. In Manchin’s amendment, which was referred to as amendment number 4, it suggests putting the language back in the bill that is currently law saying there would be restrictions on how the equipment would be moved.

Manchin called Ireland’s amendment a roll back in mine safety.

“This is a huge roll back in miner safety to take seventy some mines out of the control of this statute to say that seventy some mines will now be allowed to move oversized equipment with motors and other apparatuses that are being strained to their limits in carrying that equipment, to remove those from the provisions and to subject coal miners to being in by of those where they’re going to be exposed to those fumes and fire and all the noxious smoke that comes off of that is an outrage,” Manchin said, “It is a roll back in coal miner safety, it should not be permitted, that we have not been given any adequate excuse to do that, and therefore we should reject this. Men have died, men died to get this statute passed, men died after this statute was passed. Nine men, in Marion and Monongalia County died, I think it was in the 60s or early 70s if I’m not mistaken, because, for this statute, and now we’re going to remove that.”

Delegate Stephen Skinner of Jefferson County, a fellow sponsor of Manchin’s amendment, also spoke against Ireland’s amendment, number 2.

“The amendment offered by the gentleman across applies to a very narrow number of mines,” Skinner said, “The statute as it is right now applies to all mines and is safety focused. We should make the choice for making decisions based on evidence, and we don’t have that evidence here today.”

Delegate Patrick Lane of Kanawha County supported Ireland’s amendment, explaining that amendment number 2 was a good middle-ground and still addressed all the safety concerns.

“The gentleman from Ritchie has offered, what I would consider to be a balanced approach to making sure that miners in most of the mines where there’s a real safety issue with the movement of equipment are protected, but at the same time allowing that equipment to be moved in an efficient manner,” Lane noted, “and I would just remind people to look at the language that it says that a qualified person has to be in charge of transporting it, and specifically, as we heard yesterday, the primary issue is the energized wire that can create the problem, the real safety issue, and I think the gentleman has addressed that specifically, and would ask the committee to adopt amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from Ritchie and reject amendment number 4.”

After the debate however, Ireland’s amendment passed, and Manchin’s amendment was rejected.

Two more amendments were proposed by Delegates Manchin and Skinner; one having to do with the diesel commission and inspections, while the other had to do with rail track variants from the face of a mine. Both amendments were rejected.

Senate Bill 357 now reports to the floor for its consideration.