West Virginia Senate approves party labels for judicial candidates after heated debate
March 12, 2025 | 2025 Legislature WV, West Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The West Virginia Senate voted 22–12 on March 11, 2025, to pass a committee substitute for Senate Bill 521, a measure that requires party affiliations to be listed for candidates on ballots, including judicial candidates.
Senators debated the measure for more than two hours, with proponents saying the change will help busy voters and opponents arguing it injects partisan politics into the judicial selection process.
The bill’s sponsor, identified in the record as the junior senator from seventh, told colleagues the change ‘‘is a gift to the voters of West Virginia to be able to give them some idea of who they're voting for.’’ The senator said the intent was to simplify long ballots and help voters who have limited time to research candidates.
Opponents repeatedly said judges should remain distinct from partisan politics. The senator from Kabul, speaking in opposition, criticized the premise that voters are uninformed and said, ‘‘If the voters are so ignorant, look who they elected in this room.’’ Other opponents argued judicial officers face different duties than elected legislators and should remain free of party labels.
During floor debate senators referenced procedural matters raised in committee, including a cited 30% vote threshold in circuit races that could affect whether some contests go to additional ballots; the transcript records the threshold being discussed but does not specify statutory language or citation.
The clerk reported the final tally as 22 yeas, 12 nays, 0 abstentions. After the passage declaration, the clerk noted a title amendment; Senator Tarr moved the title amendment, and it was adopted on the floor. The clerk then was instructed to communicate the action of the Senate to the House.
Because the transcript records extensive debate, the Senate’s floor discussion included multiple points about voter information, the independence of judges, and the administrative impacts on practicing attorneys who might need to transition to judicial office. Several senators said candidates may still choose to run unaffiliated under the bill as recorded in floor remarks.
The measure as passed will proceed to the House for its consideration; the transcript records the Senate’s vote and title amendment but does not record subsequent House action.
Senators debated the measure for more than two hours, with proponents saying the change will help busy voters and opponents arguing it injects partisan politics into the judicial selection process.
The bill’s sponsor, identified in the record as the junior senator from seventh, told colleagues the change ‘‘is a gift to the voters of West Virginia to be able to give them some idea of who they're voting for.’’ The senator said the intent was to simplify long ballots and help voters who have limited time to research candidates.
Opponents repeatedly said judges should remain distinct from partisan politics. The senator from Kabul, speaking in opposition, criticized the premise that voters are uninformed and said, ‘‘If the voters are so ignorant, look who they elected in this room.’’ Other opponents argued judicial officers face different duties than elected legislators and should remain free of party labels.
During floor debate senators referenced procedural matters raised in committee, including a cited 30% vote threshold in circuit races that could affect whether some contests go to additional ballots; the transcript records the threshold being discussed but does not specify statutory language or citation.
The clerk reported the final tally as 22 yeas, 12 nays, 0 abstentions. After the passage declaration, the clerk noted a title amendment; Senator Tarr moved the title amendment, and it was adopted on the floor. The clerk then was instructed to communicate the action of the Senate to the House.
Because the transcript records extensive debate, the Senate’s floor discussion included multiple points about voter information, the independence of judges, and the administrative impacts on practicing attorneys who might need to transition to judicial office. Several senators said candidates may still choose to run unaffiliated under the bill as recorded in floor remarks.
The measure as passed will proceed to the House for its consideration; the transcript records the Senate’s vote and title amendment but does not record subsequent House action.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting