×

West Virginia Senate Democratic caucus raises issues with bill banning DEI

State Senate Minority Leader Mike Woelfel co-wrote a letter to Senate leadership and Gov. Patrick Morrisey raising concerns about the procedures to pass SB 474, banning DEI in state government. (Photo courtesy of WV Legislative Photography)

CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Senate’s two-member Democratic caucus said the Republican supermajority missed several steps when passing a bill on the last night of the legislative session banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs in state government.

State Senate Minority Leader Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, and Assistant Senate Minority Leader Joey Garcia, D-Marion, sent a letter Thursday to Gov. Patrick Morrisey, Senate President Randy Smith, R-Preston, and Senate Clerk Lee Cassis calling for the veto of Senate Bill 474, ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, writing that the bill has technical issues and should not be considered a valid law.

“We are writing to convey our concerns about a series of procedural irregularities that occurred late on the evening of April 12 during the Senate’s consideration of Senate Bill 474, the Governor’s bill ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs,” wrote Woelfel and Garcia. “Due to the Senate’s patent disregard of established legislative procedure, the bill did not properly complete legislative action and it should not be enrolled, authenticated, or presented to the Governor for approval.”

SB 474 would eliminate DEI programs and related positions across the state’s executive branch, public schools and higher education institutions. DEI is defined as actions that influence hiring based on race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin except through color-blind or sex-neutral processes, the promotion of special benefits based on these characteristics or the implementation of policies or training referencing these characteristics.

The bill, introduced on behalf of Morrisey on Feb. 14, codifies an executive order issued by Morrisey on Jan. 14. The bill first passed the Senate in a 32-2 party line vote on March 26. The bill was not considered by the House of Delegates until the final hours of the 2025 legislative session that ended at midnight on April 12.

The House rejected 19 out of 22 amendments offered mostly by the House Democratic caucus the night of April 12, taking up approximately three hours until the House passed SB 474 in an 87-12 vote. The bill went back to the Senate for that body to concur with the House’s amendments to the bill.

The Senate didn’t take up the House message on SB 474 until 11:14 p.m. that night, with just 45 minutes to the midnight deadline. There were another 15 amendments in the system offered by Garcia. The Senate was about to consider a motion to concur with the House’s amendments to SB 474, but that motion was pulled after Senate Republican leadership huddled at the podium.

By 11:31 p.m., state Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, offered a motion to suspend Joint Rule No. 3 in order to concur and pass SB 474 as a way to get around having to consider Garcia’s amendments. Joint Rule No. 3 sets the procedures for resolving disagreements on amendments to bills between the House and the Senate.

Such a motion requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber. It also requires a roll call vote, but the Senate did a voice vote on the motion instead. Woelfel and Garcia said the use of the motion was to get around considering Garcia’s amendments.

“Although Joint Rule 3 largely speaks to one chamber’s disagreement with amendments made to a bill by the other chamber — a posture the Senate was not in — the intent of suspending the rule was evidently to avoid consideration of the 15 amendments to the bill that Senator Garcia had filed in the Senate’s system, and to allow the Senate to quickly proceed to concur in the House’s amendments and pass the bill before midnight,” Woelfel and Garcia wrote.

Once the motion to suspend Joint Rule No. 3 was adopted, the Senate then voted for SB 474 in a 31-2 vote at 11:33 p.m. However, eight minutes later the vote had to be reconsidered and the motion to suspend Joint Rule No. 3 was walked back.

Senate Majority Leader Patrick Martin, R-Lewis, made the motion to move the previous question – a motion that ends debate on a bill or a motion – which was adopted by voice vote. Tarr withdrew his motion to suspend Joint Rule No. 3. But Woelfel said the Senate failed to reconsider the earlier vote to concur with the House’s changes SB 474.

“A voice vote was then taken on the pending motion for the previous question, which was adopted. But no follow-up vote of any sort was ever taken on the underlying motion for reconsideration,” Woelfel and Garcia wrote. “Instead, Senator Tarr immediately moved ‘to withdraw my motion,’ seemingly referring to his earlier motion to suspend Joint Rule 3. That motion was, again, out of order.

“Reconsideration of the rule suspension could not occur unless and until the prior passage vote was reconsidered,” Woelfel and Garcia continued. “Because neither passage nor the rule suspension were ever properly reconsidered, the first, ineffective passage vote remains in place.”

Tarr then moved to concur with the House’s changes to SB 474 and Martin made a motion to end further debate. But there were still amendments pending on SB 474 by Garcia. Woelfel and Garcia pointed to Joint Rule No. 3, which states that motions to amend a bill amended by the opposite chamber take precedence over a motion to concur, requiring the amendments be considered first.

“No inquiry from the chair was made with the Clerk whether additional Senate amendments were pending, as would ordinarily happen when amendments have been filed in the system,” Woelfel and Garcia wrote. “None of the 15 pending Senate amendments were ever afforded consideration. This was again in direct violation of the Legislature’s own procedural rules, and again nullifies the bill’s passage.”

Smith was unavailable for comment Thursday. A request for comment from the Senate Clerk’s Office and from the Governor’s Office was not returned. Woelfel and Garcia believe that by trying to suspend Joint Rule No. 3, failing to reconsider certain flawed parliamentary procedures, and failing to consider pending amendments, that SB 474 could be thrown out if challenged in court.

“For these reasons, we believe that the Senate’s final consideration of Senate Bill 474 was fatally flawed, and that the bill was never properly passed by the body,” Woelfel and Garcia wrote. “If the bill is enrolled and presented to the Governor, it will be incumbent upon the Governor to veto the bill in order to send a strong message to the Legislature that compliance with that branch of government’s own rules is essential to the making of sound public policy in the State of West Virginia.”

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

Starting at $2.99/week.

Subscribe Today