House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, announces that Senate Bill 275, the intermediate court bill, did not pass. (Photo courtesy of WV Legislative Photography)

CHARLESTON — After 22 years of study, an endorsement from a former U.S. Supreme Court justice and an attempt last year, the House of Delegates rendered a decision on the intermediate court of appeals in West Virginia.

The House rejected Senate Bill 275 in a 56-44 vote Friday. A motion to reconsider the vote on SB 275 also failed 58-42, rendering the bill effectively dead.

SB 275 would have established an intermediate court of appeals between the lower courts and the state Supreme Court.

The bill, as amended by the House both in committee last week and on the floor Thursday, created two three-judge districts in the northern and southern halves of the state. The courts would have been able to convene in different parts of their districts depending on where the litigants are located.

The intermediate court districts would hear appeals of circuit court criminal and civil cases, child welfare cases, guardianships and conservatorships, family-court cases and decisions made by administrative law judges, the Health Care Authority and Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Decisions by the intermediate court could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, which would return to hearing cases on a discretionary basis.

“It’s long past time for use to implement an intermediate court of appeals as authorized by our constitution and fully guarantee our constituents a full and meaningful right of appeal,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Shott, R-Mercer.

Opposition to SB 275 centered on the need for an additional court and the cost. Changes made by the House Judiciary Committee would eliminate any fiscal impact to the fiscal year 2021 budget being worked on now. SB 275 pushes out implementation of the court to Jan. 1, 2023, with judges to the court being elected in May 2022 and taking office Jan. 1, 2023.

Fiscal notes submitted by the Supreme Court estimate an intermediate court system could cost as much as $8.5 million to start up and $7.2 million in its first full year. The Public Defender Services estimates an increased cost of $1.2 million, but the Offices of the Insurance Commissioner would see $2.6 million in savings from the elimination of the Worker’s Compensation Office of Judges. However, with the addition of child welfare cases Thursday, some delegates believe that could double the cost of the court.

“I’ll be voting against the bill just because of the expense primarily, and I really don’t think it would achieve much even if we did add it,” said Delegate Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock.

The Supreme Court also deals with fewer case while issuing written decisions in every case. According to statistics, the Supreme Court saw a 17 percent decrease in disposed of cases between 2015 and 2019, maintaining a 100 percent clearance rate. Circuit courts, on the other hand, have seen a 29 percent increase in abuse and neglect case while seeing an overall 2 percent decrease in criminal cases and 34 percent decrease in civil cases.

Two studies in 1999 – commissioned by the late Republican Gov. Cecil Underwood – and in 2010 – commissioned by former Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin and chaired by the late U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor – recommended the state create an intermediate court of appeals. Opponents said those studies are old and based on outdated information. Since then, the court started rendering written decisions in all appeals.

“When the day and time comes when this is needed, we ought to implement it,” said House Minority Leader Tim Miley, D-Harrison, who supported a similar bill in 2011. “I don’t think that day and time is now and I don’t see it in the foreseeable future.”

Another reason some voted against the bill, including several Republicans, was due to added costs and time for small businesses should they end up being sued. Delegate Scott Cadle, R-Mason, accused members of the Senate and pro-business groups of pressuring House members to support SB 275.

“Big business is for this…they can drag you into court and wear you out,” Cadle said.

Shott said it was better to be proactive and create the intermediate court for the day when the state population starts to grow again and businesses come to the state.

“Part of our job is to set the stage with the infrastructure that will serve the needs of a growing, prosperous population,” Shott said. “We shouldn’t wait until after they drastically need something to do something. We need to be proactive.”

Wood County Republicans Tom Azinger and John Kelly voted in favor. Vernon Criss, R-Wood, Bill Anderson, R-Wood, and Chuck Little, R-Wirt, voted against.

The West Virginia Association for Justice commended the House for rejecting the bill.

“You don’t need to increase the size of our court system when the caseload is just a fraction of what it once was,” said Kristina Thomas Whiteaker, president of the association.

Delegates stood up to out-of-state special interests, she said.

“They put the needs of their constituents first, and now that money can be used for the critical programs and services this state and its residents need,” Whiteaker said.

Steven Allen Adams can be reached at sadams@newsandsentinel.com.