House Judiciary Committee Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

W.Va. Advances Bill That Would Require Age Verification For Internet Pornography

People in West Virginia would need to present some form of state-sponsored identification before accessing internet pornography under a bill that advanced Monday in the Republican-dominated state House of Delegates.

Sponsors say the bill, similar to one passed in Virginia last year, is meant to prevent children from accessing harmful explicit material. The proposal passed the House Judiciary Committee with little discussion and will now be considered by the full chamber.

The legislation would require companies with “materials harmful to minors” making up a “substantial portion” — or a little over 33% — of its website offerings to perform ”reasonable age verification methods.”

Material harmful to minors is defined as content that the “average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest.”

The bill also provides a detailed list of sexual acts that depiction of would be restricted.

Lead sponsor GOP Del. Geno Chiarelli said the 33% provision is meant to “act as a buffer” for social media websites like X, formerly known as Twitter, that host adult content, but pornography is not the “intent of the website.”

“That protects us from having to go after, you know, requiring social media companies to require the same type of verification that you would of Pornhub or something like that,” he said.

The company would not be allowed to retain any identifying material about users once they prove they’re 18 or older. The proposal would not apply to content published by news organizations.

People would be able to file civil lawsuits against companies that violate the proposed law.

Transgender Athlete Bill Passes Its Second Committee, Heads To W.Va. House Floor

A bill placing restrictions on transgender athletes in middle and high school in West Virginia is on the fast track in the House of Delegates.

The House Judiciary Committee passed HB 3293 late Friday afternoon. It was passed out of its originating committee just two days earlier.

The bill requires that a student’s birth certificate be the determining factor of that youth’s gender when it comes to playing secondary sports such as basketball and track.

The bill further requires that if a birth certificate is not available, a student must obtain a physician’s note indicating the student’s sex based “solely on the pupil’s unaltered internal and external reproductive anatomy.”

The bill would not affect current co-ed secondary school athletic opportunities.

West Virginia is one of at least 35 states where state lawmakers have introduced similar legislation this year to place restrictions on transgender athletes.

HB 3293 passed 16-5 and could be up for passage in the full House sometime next week.

‘Extended Supervision’ Bill For Selling Heroin, Fentanyl Goes To W.Va. Senate

As the West Virginia House of Delegates prepared to vote on a bill that would add up to 10 years of supervision for people convicted of certain drug crimes, lawmakers debated whether the bill would help or worsen the state’s substance use crisis.

House Bill 2257 establishes a supervised release penalty of up to 10 years for people found guilty of possession with intent to deliver heroin, methamphetamine or fentanyl.

Bill supporters said Friday that this legislation could result in fewer illegal drugs in West Virginia communities by keeping an eye on the people known to sell them.

“The whole point of extended supervision is to watch someone who has a propensity to have a repeat crime of the same nature,” said the bill’s lead sponsor, Republican Del. Brandon Steele of Raleigh County.

On the other hand, the legislation could have negative consequences for people dealing with substance use disorder themselves, by creating more red tape and requirements for people reentering society after incarceration.

“I’ve heard the word ‘dangerous,’ a lot of people are using that label,” said Del. Joey Garcia, D-Marion. “But the bill, it captures those struggling with addiction.”

The extended supervision described in House Bill 2257 would be in addition to all time already served in a correctional facility.

Steele told the full House of Delegates Friday that he modeled the bill after an existing program that extends supervision for registered sex offenders.

However, after amendments to the bill Thursday, lawmakers agreed to leave discretion up to local judges, allowing them to increase the length of extended supervision, decrease it, or revoke it and send a person back to jail or prison.

Anyone who’s required to enter extended supervision, based on these charges, is allowed to have a hearing with a judge no sooner than 60 days before the supervision is slated to begin.

Judges are allowed in House Bill 2257 to impose a monthly fee of up to $50 to people under extended supervision, to offset costs associated with monitoring them.

Judges also can require that someone on extended supervision stay home during non-working hours, using “telephone or electronic signaling devices” to ensure compliance.

Opposition to the bill garnered bipartisan support Friday.

Del. Chris Pritt, R-Kanawha, said he would be voting against the bill because it creates a “new layer of government.”

“We heard extensive testimony in the judiciary [committee] about all the different programs that they [the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation] are doing to help prevent recidivism,” Pritt said. “We don’t need a new layer of government. We need to reform our government.”

The House Judiciary committee, which agreed to pass House Bill 2257 onto the full House of Delegates last week, heard hours of testimony from the DCR, the state office of Probation Services, and Kenneth Matthews, a collegiate peer recovery coach who was formerly incarcerated at the Mount Olive Correctional Center.

Before voting on the bill Friday, many delegates referred to Matthews’ testimony to committee members during which Matthews said that he thanks his recovery to programs that connected him to housing and employment — not parole.

Del. Danielle Walker, D-Monongalia, read a letter from Matthews on the House floor. “Do not put another burden on another Kenneth Matthews in this state,” Walker told delegates afterward.

House Judiciary Chair Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, said the bill was a “genuine attempt to make things better.”

“Could we keep somebody from trying heroin for the first time because we got a bigwig drug dealer that we’ve kept our eye on off the street?” Capito said. “Could that happen? Could [this bill] result in less drugs, less poison and toxins in our community? Could that happen as a result of this bill?”

The bill passed 68 to 29 with two people not voting. It now moves onto the West Virginia Senate for consideration.

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

House Judiciary Committee Rejects Series Of Amendments To COVID Liability Bill, Advances Measure To Floor

After more than an hour of debate, the West Virginia House of Delegates Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would provide immunity from civil liability for people, businesses and health care providers as it pertains to the coronavirus pandemic.

During Tuesday’s committee meeting, lawmakers rejected a series of amendments to Senate Bill 277 that sought to dampen the wide effect of the bill. The bill would completely eliminate liability related to the coronavirus and offer a defense on claims being brought forth related to infections, treatment or death.

Del. Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell, first offered an amendment that would have allowed claims against persons or entities that act “with actual malice, or a conscious, reckless and outrageous indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.”

Lovejoy argued that he understands giving immunity to those who might be negligent, but not those who intentionally harm others. The amendment was similar to a proposed change that was offered last week by Sen. Richard Lindsay, D-Kanawha, but was ultimately rejected.

“To go beyond that and to immunize intentional harm or outrageous indifference, to the health of others, I think is bad policy,” Lovejoy said.

In the end, Lovejoy’s first amendment failed.

A second amendment brought forth by Lovejoy would have limited the definition in the bill of “impacted care” so that it would only apply to treatment related to the coronavirus and not other treatments that were delayed as a result of the pandemic. The effort was also rejected.

Lovejoy also offered an amendment that would have expired the the bill. Like his first amendment, it also echoed a change offered by Lindsay in the Senate — calling for immunity from claims to end when the state of emergency related to the coronavirus is rescinded.

Del. Steve Westfall, R-Jackson, spoke against putting an expiration date on Senate Bill 277.

“The governor called the state emergency. He’s gonna end it someday,” Westfall said. “But I’m not sure this pandemic’s ever gonna end. I think it’s gonna be a new normal.”

And like Lindsay’s similar amendment in the Senate, Lovejoy’s third amendment also failed.

Lawmakers also rejected four amendments from House Judiciary Vice Chair Tom Fast, R-Fayette, that would have narrowed the scope of immunity offered in various provisions throughout the measure.

Del. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, offered an amendment that would have created a death benefit of up to $10,000 to be used for funeral expenses for anyone who dies as a result of an intentional act and has no claim otherwise under the bill.

Garcia’s amendment also failed.

As the committee discussed the full bill, Lovejoy made mention of two letters sent to committee members that argued against the passage of Senate Bill 277 — one from the AARP and another from the ombudsman of long-term care facilities through the West Virginia Bureau of Senior Services.

The two letters argue the measure does little to protect the state’s elderly population from those who might intentionally inflict harm. Lovejoy said the bill fails to balance competing interests between protecting businesses and residents in the midst of the pandemic.

“That’s just not right. That’s not the way the law was meant to be,” Lovejoy said. “And so, because we fail to balance those competing interests of protecting our businesses — and I’m all for it — but also protecting our residents, which we do not have in this bill. I have to speak against it.”

With the Republican majority voting to advance the measure to the floor, Senate Bill 277 — unchanged from its passage in the upper chamber — now heads to the full House for consideration.

House Judiciary Committee Walks Back Amendment To Bill Reeling In Governor’s Emergency Powers

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted Monday to rescind an amendment to a bill that would limit the governor’s emergency powers. The amendment, adopted Saturday, would have made it clear that the bill applies to any current state of emergency or state of preparedness.

The lower chamber’s Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 2003 Saturday. But lawmakers on the committee returned to the measure Monday afternoon and decided to strip away the amendment offered Saturday by Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock.

House Bill 2003 would limit a state of emergency declaration to 60 days. It would also allow the Legislature to extend that declaration 30 additional days or remove the declaration altogether.

McGeehan’s amendment would have added the following line to the bill: “Upon passage any state of emergency or state of preparedness currently in effect is subject to the provisions of this section.”

The intent of the amendment was to offer the Legislature an opportunity to have a say if — and how — the state of emergency as a result of the pandemic would continue.

By order of Gov. Jim Justice, West Virginia has been under a state of emergency related to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic since March 16, 2020. Since then, the governor has acted unilaterally in handling the state’s response to the virus, although lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have attempted to exert some influence.

Lawmakers’ efforts to call themselves back into a special session in July gained traction in the House but failed to materialize in the Senate.

In the Monday afternoon meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, McGeehan seemed to acknowledge that his amendment was bound to be stripped from the bill, even despite it’s approval over the weekend.

“I’m not gonna try to convince anybody that this language should stay in the bill,” McGeehan said. “Seems like everyone has their mind made up.”

Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, spoke in favor of McGeehan’s amendment remaining in the bill. He and other Democrats said it would be in the best interest of their constituents to make the bill apply to the current state of emergency that’s been in effect since March.

“Obviously, the necessity for this amendment is clear today. Because, since we voted on it in a bipartisan manner, debated at length in a bipartisan manner, and passed it out of here in a bipartisan manner, it made somebody upset in the executive office — old king himself,” said Fluharty, alluding to Justice. “So we came back in here and we’re reneging on our promises made to our constituents.”

Del. Tom Fast, R-Fayette, spoke against keeping McGeehan’s amendment, echoing sentiments made Saturday by committee chairman Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, that it wasn’t necessary.

“I believe the language in the bill would cover the present situation without the amendment. And I think this is necessary to take this action,” Fast said. “And so I would also urge rejection of the amendment.”

Committee members voted 15-10 to scrap McGeehan’s amendment from the bill, with all Democrats and Del. Chris Pritt, R-Kanawha, joining McGeehan in voting to keep it.

The House Judiciary Committee later voted to send the bill back to the floor, where it is on pace to be up for passage by the end of the week.

Impeachment Proceedings Head into Third Round, Loughry Pleads Not Guilty to Obstruction Charge

For more information on the possible impeachments, see this explainer.

A committee investigating possible impeachment of one or more justices on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals will return to Charleston for a third round of hearing evidence and testimony. The proceedings come as one justice pleaded not guilty Wednesday to additional federal charges.

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hear testimony Thursday — and possibly Friday — from former Supreme Court administrator Steve Canterbury. During testimony last week, deputy director of court security Jess Gundy detailed a strained relationship between Canterbury and suspended Justice Allen Loughry. Gundy said Canterbury threatened to go to the press when he was fired by Loughry in January 2017.

The committee has also issued a subpoena to Loughry’s wife, Kelly, to provide testimony on the moving of furniture from their family home. This includes a historic state-owned desk and a couch Loughry claims was once the property of the late Justice Joseph Albright. Mrs. Loughry has requested to delay appearing before the committee so she can retain an attorney.

Loughry cited a court policy, saying justices could maintain a home office. Other witnesses have testified no such policy exists.

On Wednesday, Loughry pleaded not guilty to a federal obstruction of justice charge. Last month, he pleaded not guilty to 22 counts of fraud, witness tampering and making false statements. These charges run separate from the ongoing proceeding on his possible impeachment.