CHARLESTON — An effort Friday to discharge the bill that died in committee weeks ago to repeal West Virginia’s certificate of need program for health care services was thwarted in the House of Delegates, but not before debate broke out over parliamentary procedure.

Del. Chris Anders, R-Berkeley, made a motion Friday morning to discharge House Bill 2007, Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s bill to repeal the certificate of need (CON) program. That motion failed in a 16-74 vote with 10 members absent or not voting.

HB 2007 would have eliminated the CON program and the state Health Care Authority – the state agency that approves CON requests – effective Jan. 1, 2026. The committee substitute for the bill also would have continued the moratorium placed within the CON program for nursing home facilities and beds, intermediate care facilities and beds, methadone clinics, licensed substance use treatment beds, and hospice care.

HB 2007 was introduced on Feb. 18 on behalf of Morrisey, who campaigned on eliminating CON last year. During his State of the State address on the first day of the 2025 legislative session on Feb. 12, Morrisey urged lawmakers to consider a CON repeal.

However, the House Health and Human Resources Committee voted down HB 2007 in a 12-13 vote on Feb. 24. An attempt was made that same evening to reconsider the vote in committee on HB 2007, a parliamentary move that allowed committee members to vote the motion down and keep the bill from being reconsidered further.

Had Anders’ motion to discharge HB 2007 been successful, it would have allowed the bill to be read three separate days and be considered by the full House in time for next Wednesday’s Crossover Day deadline when House bills must cross over to the state Senate and vice versa. A Senate version of Morrisey’s CON repeal proposal has yet to be taken up in the Senate.

“I ask the body to vote yes to discharge the bill to bring it to the floor because this will end the government-created monopoly on health care,” Anders said. “It will increase availability and affordability for the citizens of West Virginia. So again, I’m asking you to vote yes on the discharge.”

Del. Carl Martin, R-Upshur, made a motion to table Anders’ discharge motion. According to House Rule 55, a motion to table a bill is a non-debatable motion and would have ended further consideration of Anders’ discharge motion. Such motions to table were used twice earlier this week when other members attempted to discharge other bills pending in committees.

House Speaker Pro Tempore and Deputy Speaker Matthew Rohrbach, R-Cabell, was presiding over the House Friday with House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, absent. The House Clerk’s staff told Rohrbach, however, that the motion to table was not in order. Some members questioned that ruling.

“Why can we not table this motion? We’ve had a couple other motions be tabled on a discharge motion just the other day,” said Del. Adam Vance, R-Wyoming.

Rohrbach cited section 491 subsection 3 of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, a parliamentary guide used by many state legislatures.

House Rule 145 states that when any parliamentary question is not addressed by House Rules or the state Constitution, the precedence of parliamentary authority for the House reverts to Mason’s Manual, then Jefferson’s Manual and the Digest of the Rules and Practices of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.

Rohrbach determined that despite House Rule 53 stating clearly that a motion to table has precedence over a motion to discharge, Rohrbach said “In consultation with the clerk and the parliamentarian, the motion to table is not in order.” Del. Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, challenged Rohrbach’s ruling.

“I believe that the Speaker would acknowledge that the rules of the House of Delegates take precedence over the Mason’s Rules or the Jeffersonian Rules or any other rules that we might have,” Steele said. “The only time we consult those rules is when there is not a specific House rule on the matter.”

“(Steele) is completely correct,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman JB Akers, R-Kanawha. “It says that on any question of order or parliamentary practice, when the House rules are silent or inexplicit, then you move to secondary sources…I don’t believe that any reference to Mason’s Manual is necessary or actually in order in this situation.”

Del. Daniel Linville, R-Cabell, said he agreed that the House was not following its own rules, but argued that members should support Rohrbach and House leadership.

“Ultimately, at the conclusion of this, we’re either going to vote on (Anders’) motion to discharge House Bill 2007, or we’ll vote on one (motion) where it’ll be to lay his motion upon the table. But either way, you’re taking a vote,” Linville said. “At this point, everyone ought to rally behind the Republican leadership generally…and vote to sustain the ruling of the chair, even though I actually argue the opposite ruling.”

Del. Jim Butler, R-Mason, argued that House members need to stand up for the rules adopted by House members at the beginning of session.

“I don’t know what we’re doing here if we’re not going to follow the rules,” Butler said. “I like the chair in this situation, but how can we continue here if we’re not following our own rules?”

Rohrbach urged members to support his ruling, arguing that the body was following the rules as laid out in House Rules and Mason’s Manual.

“I would remind people that we’ve discussed this with Speaker Hanshaw. He’s firmly convinced that…our power to operate in this particular question resides in Mason’s Manual,” Rohrbach said. “We’ve spoken with our parliamentarian, who’s also our chief counsel. We’ve spoken with our other counsel for the body and our clerk. So, we are following the rules that are laid out in Mason’s Manual, and I would ask for a green vote.”

The House voted to uphold Rohrbach’s ruling in a 58-31 vote, then voted against Anders’ motion to discharge HB 2007. Members of the House Democratic minority began discharge motions, including a successful discharge motion for House Bill 3270, relating to drug testing of legislators, taking it from the House Judiciary Committee, though the bill would still go to the House Finance Committee.

“You know, I’ve been down here for a number of years and had this bill running, and I believe West Virginians, after today’s activities watching this fiasco, they want to see us follow through with the same things they have to follow through on for their jobs,” said House Minority Whip Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, the lead sponsor of HB 3270.