During The 2021 Session, West Virginia Lawmakers Teed Up Three Proposed Constitutional Amendments. Here’s What They’d Do

While any 60-day legislative session focuses on the hundreds of bills introduced and considered, Republican supermajorities this year helped push three proposed constitutional amendments to the ballot for voters to ponder.

Come November 2022, West Virginians will have the opportunity to decide whether to amend the state constitution on three different issues — preventing the state Supreme Court from intervening in impeachment proceedings, giving the Legislature the ability to exempt more types of property taxes and allowing religious denominations to incorporate.

House Judiciary Chair Moore Capito, R- Kanawha, said lawmakers in the Republican supermajority tried to be thoughtful in offering changes to the foundation of state law.

“I personally think that we have to always proceed with caution when we’re talking about modifying something that is as large and as important as our Constitution,” Capito said.

These proposals — considered by the Legislature as joint resolutions — require a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate before heading to the voting public for ratification.

Late into the session, lawmakers had considered putting them on the ballot in a special election as soon as July but ultimately backed off from that date.

House Judiciary Minority Chair Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell, said he’s glad they gave voters more time to study the issues at hand. He also said costs of a special election would have been in the millions.

“That’s a pretty monumental undertaking to statewide elections in a matter of weeks, coming off of the 2020 election — which was unusual, to say the least, in terms of COVID and the different things,” Lovejoy said. “So, I don’t think it was prudent from a cost perspective and a functional perspective to try to do it.”

Voters will now wait until Nov. 2022 to decide these three issues.

2018 Supreme Court Impeachments Inspire Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Like all pieces of legislation, each of these proposed changes to West Virginia’s foundational law come with context — and arguments both in support and in opposition. That’s especially true for House Joint Resolution 2.

In 2018, as impeachment trials were underway for justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, then-Chief Justice Margaret Workman filed a lawsuit challenging her own impeachment.

“This lawsuit was started and no one thought that stood a chance — because it was just counter to everything that people knew to be true in the Constitution,” said former Senate President Mitch Carmichael, who was named as a defendant in the suit.

In offering a ruling on Workman v. Carmichael, an an-hoc bench of the state Supreme Court ruled that the House failed to follow its own rules in the impeachment process and had overstepped its authority in adopting some of the articles of impeachment.

“So we were shut down, we adhered and abided by the judicial rule — even though we thought it was wrong,” Carmichael said.

State lawmakers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately decided not to hear the case. Since then, legislators have tried to find a way to keep courts from intervening in future impeachments and further clarify the separation of powers.

Carmichael said, while he never thought he’d be part of something that inspired a potential constitutional amendment, it’s simply necessary in his mind.

“It’s the appropriate right thing to do,” he said. “Whether it’s my name or someone else’s name — that ruling just went counter to everything all of us believed to be the right thing to do.”

But it’s probably no surprise — given the fact that there was a lawsuit involved — that not everyone agrees. Huntington-based attorney Marc Williams represented Justice Workman in the case.

While Williams acknowledges that impeachment is inherently political, he argues the proceedings in 2018 proved the courts need to have the opportunity to play a role when things go awry.

“It shouldn’t come as any surprise that there would be a review of the impeachment proceedings that was so flawed, that would ultimately find that it was done [improperly],” Williams said. “But ultimately, I think it’s an extraordinarily rare set of circumstances where a court would get involved and only when really blatant mistakes are made.”

Williams argues that adding this change to the West Virginia Constitution could have disastrous effects if another impeachment took place but was not properly handled by the Legislature.

“If I had all the money in the world, and could actually go out and try to educate the voters on this, I would point out that this is an extraordinarily dangerous initiative,” he said. “Because, essentially, what you’re doing is you’re giving the Legislature the ability to impeach almost for any purpose with no appellate review — with no opportunity for anybody to review it.”

Potential Job Growth Vs. Funding For Counties: Legislature Could Exempt Property Taxes If Amendment Is Ratified

Another proposed constitutional amendment also has recent history behind it.

Since taking control of the Legislature following the 2014 election, Republicans have rallied behind exempting manufacturing equipment and inventory taxes — but had failed to attain a two-thirds majority from both chambers to send the issue to voters.

But, during the 2021 legislative session, lawmakers in both the House and Senate adopted House Joint Resolution 3, which reads differently than past proposals. If ratified, the Legislature would be able to exempt virtually all types of personal property — from manufacturing equipment and inventory to personal vehicles.

West Virginia Manufacturer’s Association President Rebecca McPhail said the goal of exempting taxes related to her sector is job growth.

“The challenge that we have right now, because of the way these taxes are applied to our industry, specifically places us in the top 10 worst states for taxation on manufacturing,” McPhail said. “And that’s very challenging. That’s challenging from an economic development perspective — just just to get a first look.”

McPhail said the amendment would untie the hands of lawmakers to exempt taxes as they see fit.

“This is not just limited to manufacturing,” McPhail said. “This is a broader constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature at some future date to address a number of types of personal property tax, including the taxation that affects our members — but also small business inventory as well as personal vehicles.”

In total, the Legislature would have the ability to exempt part or all of roughly $300 million in tax revenue, according to the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy.

But Jonathan Adler of the West Virginia Association of Counties said there’s currently no way to recoup revenue that funds county and municipal governments and, most notably, school systems.

“I think counties do certainly support jobs [and] job creation,” Adler said. “But if there’s no mechanism to replace the lost revenues for counties, then we’re kind of scratching our heads wondering exactly what that revenue replacement is going to be.”

While Adler said county and local governments are open to the idea of exempting various types of personal property taxes, he said there are a lot of unknowns — especially given the way the state funds local governments and schools.

“We’ve always said, there’s not a plan yet,” Adler said. “We need a plan to try and support something like this. We need to see what your plan is when you get the authority.”

Incorporation Of Churches Will Also Be On The November 2022 Ballot

While the other two proposed amendments saw at least some opposition, Senate Joint Resolution 4 made its way through the statehouse with overwhelming backing.

The proposal would allow churches to incorporate — offering them the ability to manage assets more like other businesses and nonprofits. Capito said it was about modernizing West Virginia law to match most of the rest of the country.

“What we have now is the opportunity for churches and houses of worship to incorporate, which is pretty standard procedure across the country, quite frankly,” Capito said. “So I think we’re just synching up there.”

While constitutional amendments are oftentimes divisive, Lovejoy said the proposal to allow churches to incorporate is rather innocuous.

“It, frankly, is a little easier to operate under a traditional corporate sense than it is under this kind of antiquated Board of Trustees management,” Lovejoy said. “So I don’t think it has anything to do with taxes. It has nothing to do with politics, frankly. I think that it does make things a little easier to manage religious institutions.”

Votes for ratification may be a long way away, but the issues are bound to stir public discussion and influence from special interest groups. No doubt, there will be mailers, advertisements and campaigns in support and against some of the more controversial proposals.

And with another legislative session slated ahead November 2022 — and with supermajorities intact in the meantime — it’s possible even more proposed amendments will wind up on the ballot.

Citing Halting Of 2018 Trials, W.Va. House Votes To Amend State Constitution And Keep Courts Out Of Impeachment Process

The Republican-led West Virginia House of Delegates has given its stamp of approval on a proposed constitutional amendment that would keep the Supreme Court and other tribunals from intervening in any impeachment proceedings.

House Joint Resolution 2 stems from the halting of impeachment trials in the West Virginia Senate in the fall of 2018.

As a proposed constitutional amendment, joint resolutions need a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate before going to a vote of the general public.

If adopted and ratified, House Joint Resolution 2 would strengthen some language in the West Virginia Constitution to clarify the Legislature’s role and add the following line:

“No court of this state has any authority or jurisdiction, by writ or otherwise, to intercede or intervene in, or interfere with, any impeachment proceedings of the House of Delegates or the Senate conducted hereunder; nor is any judgment rendered by the Senate following a trial of impeachment reviewable by any court of this state.”

In 2018, after a lengthy investigation in the House of Delegates that led to the impeachment of the entire bench of the state Supreme Court over lavish spending of state funds and using public resources for private gain, justices on the state’s high court were set to stand trial.

First was Justice Beth Walker, who was ultimately acquitted and censured by the upper chamber.

But when then-Justice Margaret Workman challenged her own impeachment in the case of Workman v. Carmichael, an ad hoc bench of the Supreme Court ruled the entire process was flawed, thus throwing out Workman’s trial and the remaining others.

House Judiciary Chair Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, referenced that ruling in a floor speech Tuesday while speaking in favor of House Joint Resolution 2.

“It really pushed the limits of separation of powers in West Virginia, the very foundational concept of this republic — the separation of powers,” Capito said. “That substitute court issued an opinion that rendered our findings in this body moot.”

Del. Larry Rowe, D-Kanawha, spoke against the resolution and attempted to put the ad hoc bench’s decision into context.

“I think it’s very important that we understand that the court did not take over our impeachment process,” Rowe said. “The Supreme Court said ‘If you’re gonna do it, you gotta do it right.’”

Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, also spoke against House Joint Resolution 2, arguing that it could unintentionally tip the balance of power between the separate but equal branches of government.

“We all know that power should have a check and a balance. That’s our system. We’re taking away that we’re saying that we are superior, that we are infallible and we don’t screw up,” Fluharty said. “Well, the evidence is that we have before recently — and we were so offended by it, we’ve got to come in here and change the constitution.”

House Government Organization Chair Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, said the decision handed down in the Workman v. Carmichael case was a “travesty” that was “self-serving” to promote and prolong the justice’s tenure on the Supreme Court.

“It’s important to remember some of the powers designated to this body that are not designated to any other body. The only body that has the ability to impeach anybody — to impeach any government official — is this house. This house is where it all begins,” Steele said. “How can another body have dictatorial control over the rules in which this body arrives at that conclusion?”

Delegates ultimately voted 78-21 to adopt House Joint Resolution 2, which was mostly along party lines. Del. Mick Bates, D-Raleigh, and Del. Cody Thompson, D-Randolph, broke with their party and joined Republicans in voting for the resolution.

House Joint Resolution 2 now heads to the Senate.

If approved by a two-thirds majority in the upper chamber, the proposed amendment to the state constitution would head to a vote of the general public in November 2024, where a simple majority would be needed to enact the change.

Marshall Professor: Capitol Clash Exposes Nation’s Lack of Civic Education, Knowledge

The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump extremists has thrown Congress into turmoil. Many are asking what to do about the president who encouraged the acts of the rioters who attacked the capitol building.

Mary Beth Beller is an associate professor of political science at Marshall University. Reporter Eric Douglas spoke with her to get some perspective on what brought us to this situation and what will happen moving forward.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Douglas: The attack last Wednesday on the U.S. Capitol was disturbing for most of America. I’m sure you were glued to the TV like most of us. What were your thoughts?

Beller: I think there are a couple of things that we need to take into very serious consideration. The first is that all of us, as Americans, have a very cherished right to protest against our government to petition for redress of grievances. It is right there in the Constitution. It’s a First Amendment right. And I think it must be respected at all times. That the second thing is, this protest was about trying to overturn an election that had been certified in all 50 states. It was a legal process in all 50 states. What began as a protest against something that had legally occurred, crossed the line and became an act of insurrection, which is illegal.

Douglas: Where do we go from here? We’ve heard a lot of discussion about the 25th Amendment or another impeachment. I understand the concerns, but do you really think that either one of those will have time to take place?

Beller: I don’t think it is possible that we’re going to invoke section four of the 25th Amendment because that rests on the president being incapacitated. That incapacity relies on a doctor’s evaluation. So that may not be possible. What could be possible is impeachment and the speaker (of the House of Representatives) has said that she’s prepared to start on that. It is also possible that the Senate and the House could vote to censure the president for starting an insurrection.

Douglas: The thought has crossed my mind that we would have a Nixonesque 11th-hour resignation when facing another impeachment. I wonder if that’s not more likely than running the impeachment through the full process.

Beller: President Donald Trump has said quite firmly that he will not resign. And President Nixon, for all of his faults, did respect institutions. He did not want to have the stain on his presidency, or the presidency as an office, of having impeachment. For a long time, it’s been speculated that President Trump would resign the day before he left office so that then-President Mike Pence could pardon him. Whether that is in the works, or whether a President Pence would actually do that is something that remains to be seen.

Douglas: There seems to be a real break since Wednesday between the vice president and the president. If that had been a possibility a few months ago, the likelihood of something like that happening seems to be much reduced.

Beller: Vice President Pence was a member of Congress. He respects the institution of Congress. He was fulfilling his constitutional duty on Wednesday. It has to be noted that he has a different regard for constitutional processes than President Trump does. The other thing we need to take into consideration is that Mike Pence, as Vice President, may have a political life left, and he needs to assess what’s going to be in his political interest going forward.

Douglas: What haven’t we talked about? What have we missed?

Beller: We have missed the elephant in the room and that is that we have thousands of Americans who do not possess the ability to discern fact from fiction. These people truly believe that there was a stolen election. Even in the face of the facts that show that there was no stolen election.

Douglas: Fifteen or 20 years ago, we would hear about people being radicalized online. This was all in reference to ISIS or al-Qaida, but it seems like we’re facing exactly the same thing.

Beller: We have failed in civics education. None of this should require a sophisticated degree. All Americans should know how they can get involved in the political process. Everybody should know it’s a right of every American to be able to do so. And it has been through social media, but also through a lot of networks that call themselves news. People don’t have the ability to discern between news and propaganda.

Trump Criticizes West Virginia's Manchin On Impeachment Votes

President Donald Trump on Friday criticized Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia for voting guilty on two articles of impeachment, aiming to weaken the senator’s political standing in a state Trump carried by a whopping 42 percentage points in 2016.

Trump tweeted that he was “very surprised & disappointed” with Manchin’s votes. He claimed no president has done more for the state.

Trump asserted in a subsequent tweet that Manchin was “just a puppet” for the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.

“That’s all he is!” Trump tweeted.

Manchin said in announcing his decision on the impeachment vote Wednesday that the evidence presented by House managers clearly supported the charges brought against the president.

 
“I take no pleasure in these votes, and am saddened this is the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren,” Manchin said. “I have always wanted this president, and every president, to succeed, but I deeply love our country and must do what I think is best for the nation.”

Manchin’s office didn’t immediately comment Friday evening. 

In West Virginia, the Republican leader of the state Senate said “there’s just a general sense of shock”after Manchin’s vote. 

“You cannot walk this back,” said Senate President Mitch Carmichael. “I think he yielded to the pressure of the national Democrats to stay united on this issue with the Washington liberal establishment.” 

Manchin remained publicly undecided on impeachment until essentially the last minute, saying he wanted to get all the evidence he could before casting his vote. He stirred speculation about his intentions when he floated the idea of censuring the president, though the move didn’t gain much traction, and again when he said that Hunter Biden would be a relevant witness in the trial. 

West Virginia Sen. Roman Prezioso, the Democratic minority leader of the state Senate, said it’s often hard to know where Manchin is going to come down on an issue.

“Anyone who knows him knows he’s not a puppet,” Prezioso said. “He’s an independent voice, he’ll make a decision predicated on the facts.”

Manchin is serving his second term as a U.S. senator, and has also served as the state’s governor. He and Trump appeared to have a warmer relationship than the president has with most Democratic lawmakers. Trump invited him to the White House in August when the president presented former basketball player Bob Cousy with the Medal of Freedom. A month later, Manchin was again at the White House when Trump presented the Medal of Freedom to another former basketball great, Jerry West.

Republicans have gained the upper hand in West Virginia in recent decades. But the moderate Manchin won a second full term to the Senate in the 2018 elections in a tight race against a Trump-backed challenger.

U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican who voted against impeachment, told Fox News on Thursday that people in the state are “rather mystified” by Manchin’s vote. 

“I just feel that probably Senator Schumer just pulled the noose a little tight and said ‘come on, everybody, we’re going to jump off this cliff together,’ and back here, West Virginians, they’re very surprised,” she said.

Trump-Friendly Manchin Votes To Convict President As Articles Of Impeachment Fail

West Virginia U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, often seen as one of the most moderate and Trump-friendly Democrats in the Senate, voted Wednesday along party lines to convict President Donald Trump on both Articles of Impeachment. 

While the 67-vote threshold for convicting the president was viewed as nearly insurmountable with Republicans holding a 53 seat majority in the Senate, Manchin remained undecided about how he would vote until Wednesday. 

In the end, though, Trump was acquitted on both Articles of Impeachment. The first, which charged him with abusing the power of his office, failed on a 48-52 vote. The second article, charging Trump of obstructing Congress by blocking White House officials from responding to House subpoenas, was downed 47-53.

West Virginia’s senior senator has supported Trump in other controversial votes, including the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in October 2018. Manchin was re-elected to another six-year term in November 2018.

The president remains favorable in West Virginia — where he won the state by more than 40 percentage points in 2016. 

But Wednesday, Manchin said in a statement that the evidence brought forth by House managers “clearly supports the charges brought against the President.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaizpSI02pk

He condemned Republicans for blocking additional witnesses during the impeachment trial. Manchin also took issue with the president taking “executive privilege” in blocking testimony from White House officials who were subpoenaed by House Democrats. 

“Voting whether or not to remove a sitting President has been a truly difficult decision, and after listening to the arguments presented by both sides, I have reached my conclusion reluctantly,” Manchin said. “I take no pleasure in these votes, and am saddened this is the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren. I have always wanted this President, and every President to succeed, but I deeply love our country and must do what I think is best for the nation.”

On Monday, Manchin proposed publicly condemning Trump’s actions toward Ukraine through a censure resolution. At the time, Manchin said he was unsure of how he would vote on the Articles of Impeachment. 

Belinda Biafore, who serves as chairwoman of the West Virginia Democratic Party, applauded Manchin’s votes to convict Trump on the Articles of Impeachment. 

“We proudly stand with U.S. Senator Joe Manchin in defending our nation, the Constitution, and all that we stand for as Americans,” Biafore said in a Wednesday statement. “No one is above the law and that includes President Donald Trump.”

U.S Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., voted to acquit the president on both Articles of Impeachment. 

West Virginia House Delegation Votes Against Trump's Impeachment

West Virginia’s congressional delegation in the House of Representatives all voted against the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Republicans David…

West Virginia’s congressional delegation in the House of Representatives all voted against the impeachment of President Donald Trump. 

Republicans David McKinley, Alex Mooney and Carol Miller — who represent West Virginia’s first, second and third districts, respectively — each voted against both articles of impeachment against Trump. 

In a statement following the vote, McKinley defended the president and said the vote “sets a precedent that impeachment is no longer based on evidence, but instead who holds the majority in the House.”

In a series of Tweets, Mooney said Trump did nothing wrong and that the articles of impeachment were “meritless.”

Miller spoke on the floor ahead of the vote, stating there was “zero cause” for the charges against the president. She argued that Congress has been preoccupied with impeachment — rather the work of the American people.  

The articles accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — stemming from his handling of Ukraine. They were approved on mostly party line votes. 

Trump now will stand trial in the Senate, where U.S. Senators Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Shelley Moore Capito, will act as jurors along with the rest of the members.

A two thirds majority — or 67 votes — is needed to remove the president from office.

Exit mobile version