Increasing number of magistrates in certain counties
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 653 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 653.
You're tracking SB 653
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 653 — Increasing number of magistrates in certain counties
Last action — To House Finance
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House of Delegates
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
156 added · 61 removedPlain-language change summary
The amended bill SB 653 increases the number of magistrates in specific counties, like Berkeley County, which will have an additional magistrate starting January 1, 2021. This change aims to address disparities in caseloads and improve the resources available in magistrate courts, ensuring they can better serve the needs of their communities. By enacting this increase, the bill seeks to make the judicial system more equitable across different counties.
NEWS RELEASES HELPFUL LINKS IntroducedSB653 VersionSUB1 « Senate Bill 653 History OTHER VERSIONS — CommitteeIntroduced SubstituteVersion (1) | | Email Key:
Red = new code to be enacted WEST virginia legislature regular session IntroducedCommittee Substitute for Senate Bill 653 BySenators Senator Carmichael (Mr.
President)President), [IntroducedTarr, Januaryand 29,Rucker, 2020;original sponsors [Originating in the Committee on the Judiciary;
referredreported on February 7, 2020] A BILL to theamend Committeeand onreenact §50-1-2 and §50-1-6 of the Judiciary;Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, all relating generally to magistrate courts;
andestablishing then to the Committeenumber onof Finance]magistrates A BILL to amendserve andin reenacteach §50-1-2county of the Codestate; of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to the number of magistrates in Putnam County.
increasing the number of magistrates to serve in certain counties beginning on January 1, 2021;
and providing for the initial filling of vacancies in newly created magisterial offices.
(a) TheUpon numberthe ofeffective magistratesdate toof bethis electedsection, inthe eachnumber county of thismagistrates stateserving shall be determined in accordanceeach withcounty theshall provisionsbe ofas thisfollows: section.
(b)(1) TheBarbour numberCounty of magistrates serving in each county of the state shall comporthave withtwo themagistrates. numbers certified by the Supreme Court of Appeals to the ballot commissioners of each county on or before January 31, 2000, for purposes of the primary and general elections to be held in the year 2000.
(c)(1)(2) TheBerkeley LegislatureCounty findsshall thathave therefive existsmagistrates, amongexcept thethat variousbeginning countieson largeJanuary and1, unwarranted2021, disparitiesBerkeley ofCounty caseloadshall betweenhave thesix magistratemagistrates. courts.
The(3) LegislatureBoone furtherCounty findsshall thathave thetwo disparitymagistrates. causes an inequity with regard to magistrate court resources and the ability of the courts to effectively meet the needs of the citizens of this state who need to avail themselves of this judicial resource.
The(4) LegislatureBraxton furtherCounty findsshall thathave thetwo systemmagistrates. currently in place for allocating magistrate court resources which has been in effect since the year 1991 produces certain anomalies which cause quadrennial reallocation of magistrate resources based upon said anomalies which in turn cause a waste of funds, inequitable workloads, unnecessary shifting of resources and confusion among the various counties.
(2)(5) TheBrooke officeCounty ofshall Legislativehave Servicestwo ismagistrates. hereby directed to undertake a comprehensive study of the magistrate courts of the various counties to determine, among other things, the work performed by various personnel in the magistrate court system, how work time is spent by said employees and to report its findings no later than December 10, 2001, to the joint standing committee on the judiciary.
(3)(6) TheCabell divisionCounty of criminal justice and highway safety shall, in conjunction with the administrative office of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, compile for consideration by the Legislature statistical information and documentation regarding caseloads, cases handled per year per magistrate, cases per county, cases per circuit and provide to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates no later than the first day of the 2002 regular session of the Legislature, their recommendations for improving the magistrate process, better utilization of court resources, including, but not limited to, categorizing the various types of cases heard in magistrate court and developing a new weighted formula to evaluate types of cases by the amount of time necessary to bring said cases to a resolution (d) (c) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the allowable number of magistrates serving the counties of Berkeley and Nicholas on March 1, 2001, shall behave increasedseven bymagistrates. one in each county, effective July 1, 2001.
The(7) initialCalhoun appointmentCounty to the position shall behave madetwo inmagistrates. accordance with the provisions of §50-1-6 of this code.
(d)(8) NotwithstandingClay theCounty other provisions of this section, the allowable number of magistrates serving the county of Putnam shall behave increasedtwo bymagistrates. one effective July 1, 2020.
The(9) initialDoddridge appointmentCounty to the position shall behave madetwo inmagistrates. accordance with the provisions of §50-1-6 of this code.
(10) Fayette County shall have four magistrates.
(11) Gilmer County shall have two magistrates.
(12) Grant County shall have two magistrates.
(13) Greenbrier County shall have three magistrates.
(14) Hampshire County shall have two magistrates.
(15) Hancock County shall have three magistrates.
(16) Hardy County shall have two magistrates.
(17) Harrison County shall have five magistrates.
(18) Jackson County shall have two magistrates.
(19) Jefferson County shall have three magistrates, except that beginning on January 1, 2021, Jefferson County shall have four magistrates.
(20) Kanawha County shall have ten magistrates.
(21) Lewis County shall have two magistrates.
(22) Lincoln County shall have two magistrates.
(23) Logan County shall have three magistrates.
(24) Marion County shall have four magistrates.
(25) Marshall County shall have three magistrates.
(26) Mason County shall have two magistrates.
(27) McDowell County shall have three magistrates.
(28) Mercer County shall have five magistrates.
(29) Mineral County shall have two magistrates.
(30) Mingo County shall have three magistrates.
(31) Monongalia County shall have four magistrates, except that beginning on January 1, 2021, Monongalia County shall have five magistrates.
(32) Monroe County shall have two magistrates.
Show all 75 changed lines (35 more)
(33) Morgan County shall have two magistrates.
(34) Nicholas County shall have three magistrates.
(35) Ohio County shall have four magistrates.
(36) Pendleton County shall have two magistrates.
(37) Pleasants County shall have two magistrates.
(38) Pocahontas County shall have two magistrates.
(39) Preston County shall have three magistrates.
(40) Putnam County shall have three magistrates, except that beginning on January 1, 2021, Putnam County shall have four magistrates.
(41) Raleigh County shall have five magistrates.
(42) Randolph County shall have three magistrates.
(43) Ritchie County shall have two magistrates.
(44) Roane County shall have two magistrates.
(45) Summers County shall have two magistrates.
(46) Taylor County shall have two magistrates.
(47) Tucker County shall have two magistrates.
(48) Tyler County shall have two magistrates.
(49) Upshur County shall have two magistrates.
(50) Wayne County shall have three magistrates.
(51) Webster County shall have two magistrates.
(52) Wetzel County shall have two magistrates.
(53) Wirt County shall have two magistrates.
(54) Wood County shall have four magistrates.
(55) Wyoming County shall have three magistrates.
(b) Initial appointment.
— Magistrates shall be appointed to fill initial vacancies in the magisterial offices created by the amendments to this section during the regular session according to the requirements of §50-1-6 of this code.
Thereafter, magistrates shall be elected to such offices as required by §50-1-1 of this code.
§50-1-6.
Vacancy in office of magistrate.
(a) Subject to the provisions of §3-10-1 and §3-10-3 of this code, when a vacancy occurs in the office of magistrate or when an additional magisterial office is created by statute to commence before the expiration of the term of office for sitting magistrates, the judge of the circuit court, or the chief judge thereof if there is more than one judge of the circuit court, shall fill the same by appointment.
(b) At a nonpartisan judicial election in which a magistrate is elected for an unexpired term, the circuit judge, or the chief judge thereof if there is more than one judge of the circuit court, shall cause a notice of such election to be published prior to such election as a Class II-0 legal advertisement in compliance with the provisions of §59-3-1 et seq.
of this code and the publication area for such publication shall be the county involved.
The purpose of this bill is to increase the number of magistrates in Berkeley, Jefferson, and Putnam County.Counties.
§50-1-2 has been completely rewritten;
therefore, it has been completely underscored.
Bill Status | Bill Tracking | Legacy WV Code | Bulletin Board | District Maps | Senate Roster | House Roster | Live | Blog | Jobs | Links | Home This Web site is maintained by the West Virginia Legislature's Office of Reference & Information.
Show all 75 changed rows (35 more)
View plain text versions (2)
- Committee Substitute View text Current html
- Introduced Introduced Version html
Action History
-
To House Finance
-
With amendment, do pass, but first to Finance
-
To House Judiciary
-
To Judiciary then Finance
-
Introduced in House
-
Ordered to House
-
Passed Senate (Roll No. 303)
-
Read 3rd time
-
On 3rd reading
-
Read 2nd time
-
On 2nd reading
-
Read 1st time
-
Immediate consideration
-
Reported do pass
-
To Finance
-
Committee substitute reported, but first to Finance
-
To Judiciary
-
Introduced in Senate
-
To Judiciary then Finance
-
Filed for introduction
Sponsors
- Carmichael · Primary
- Eric Tarr · Cosponsor
- Rucker · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 149 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Carmichael
Co-sponsors (2)
- Eric Tarr Republican
- Rucker
Not signed on (149)
149 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 149 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 30 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 32 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 94% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (34)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| LINDSAY | — | Yea |
| SMITH | — | Yea |
| BALDWIN | — | Yea |
| MANN | — | Yea |
| STOLLINGS | — | Yea |
| BEACH | — | Yea |
| MARONEY | — | Yea |
| SWOPE | — | Yea |
| BLAIR | — | Yea |
| MAYNARD | — | Yea |
| SYPOLT | — | Yea |
| BOLEY | — | Yea |
| PALUMBO | — | Nay |
| TAKUBO | — | Yea |
| PITSENBARGER | — | Yea |
| TARR | — | Yea |
| CLINE | — | Yea |
| PLYMALE | — | Yea |
| TRUMP | — | Yea |
| FACEMIRE | — | Yea |
| PREZIOSO | — | Yea |
| UNGER | — | Yea |
| HAMILTON | — | Yea |
| ROBERTS | — | Yea |
| WELD | — | Yea |
| HARDESTY | — | Yea |
| ROMANO | — | Yea |
| WOELFEL | — | Yea |
| IHLENFELD | — | Nay |
| RUCKER | — | Yea |
| MR PRESIDENT | — | Yea |
| JEFFRIES | — | Yea |
| Charles H. Clements | Republican | Yea |
| Mike Azinger | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 653?
- SB 653 is sponsored by Carmichael, Eric Tarr (Republican), and Rucker.
- What is the current status of SB 653?
- This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 653?
- Track SB 653 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 653
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 653
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →