Attempt by Hancock County Delegate Pat McGeehan To Limit Current Pandemic State of Emergency Fails

Photo Courtesy of W.Va. Legislative Photography Delegate Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, argues in favor of an amendment to provide a timeline for reviewing the current state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic.

CHARLESTON — An attempt by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to give the Legislature say on the current state of emergency for the COVID-19 failed in a narrow vote Thursday.

The House of Delegates voted 47-51 against an amendment to House Bill 2003, relating to the authority and obligations of the governor and Legislature when in declared states of preparedness and emergency. The bill is on third reading and up for passage today in the House.

HB 2003, as it is currently written, puts a time limit on future states of emergency called by the governor. If passed by the Legislature and approved by Gov. Jim Justice, any state of emergency lasting longer than 60 days would require the Legislature to meet in special session to extend the state of emergency.

The failed amendment – offered by Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock – would have started a 60-day countdown on the state of emergency called by Justice last year for the COVID-19 pandemic, starting when the bill was passed by both the House and state Senate.

“The concept of the bill is to limit the duration of a state of emergency without legislative approval for an extension,” McGeehan said. “What my amendment does is make it clear that this … applies to the current state of emergency. If my amendment were to pass — upon passage, essentially — the clock would start ticking.”

West Virginia has been under a state of emergency since March 16, 2020, with Justice issuing dozens of executive orders dealing with pandemic response, closing and re-opening non-essential businesses, ordering the usage of face masks in indoor public places, determining reopening guidelines and metrics for schools, and more.

McGeehan first offered the amendment during a meeting last Saturday of the House Judiciary Committee. The amendment was adopted, with the committee approving HB 2003. However, by Monday, the committee reconsidered the bill and removed McGeehan’s amendment.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, said he didn’t oppose the intent of McGeehan’s amendment, but he did raise concerns about the amendment’s language and whether it created ambiguity.

“When you insert emotion into the policymaking process, we get sloppy sometimes,” Capito said. “I don’t know what ‘passage’ means … Does it mean passage from this body? Does it mean passage from (the Senate)? Does it mean when it’s signed by the governor? Sounds like a question that needs some interpretation.”

McGeehan said the meaning of “passage” is plain and simple, with legislation approved all the time which makes those laws effective from passage, meaning when a bill completes the legislative process but before a governor signs it into law. In conversations with legislative attorneys, McGeehan said the current bill isn’t clear on whether it applies to the current state of emergency or not.

“If some of our smartest members in here and smartest attorneys in here can’t determine exactly what the fact is if this bill were to pass … that’s sort of a travesty,” McGeehan said. “I’m sort of taken aback by (Capito’s) argument, because when I first offered this amendment and spoke with him, he never brought that up. The amendment was written right in front of him, and he never said, ‘I don’t understand what passage means.'”

Debate on the single amendment took up more than 40 minutes and resulted in multiple floor speeches by fellow Republicans and even Democratic lawmakers expressing support for McGeehan’s amendment.


Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)


Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today