CHARLESTON, W.V. -- Criminal-justice advocates in West Virginia urged lawmakers to oppose a new bill they say would politicize parole hearings, making it more difficult for incarcerated people to get a fair review.

House Bill 2747 would put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of the state parole board's hearing office and require the chair of that board be an attorney, serving directly under the governor.

Beverly Sharp, director of reentry initiatives for the West Virginia Council of Churches, said the chair would no longer be a full-time position and someone without experience in corrections could be chosen for the post as a political appointment.

"If you politicize even more, these positions, and you serve at the will and pleasure of the governor, it makes it extremely difficult for individuals to assess the case based on merit as opposed to what's the current political climate," Sharp contended.

She noted the bill is having a reading today in the House Judiciary Committee, and stands a good chance of passing with Republican support.

The bill is one of two measures introduced this session aimed at changing parole policy.

Prison reform groups support House Bill 3078, which would allow inmates to complete required classes while on parole instead of beforehand.

Eli Baumwell, policy director for the ACLU of West Virginia, said access to these classes, which fill up quickly and cover drug rehabilitation and life skills, are a barrier to reentry and one reason the state's prisons are overcrowded.

"It's going to reduce the overpopulation, and that has a whole bunch of good downstream effects," Baumwell asserted. "It helps to encourage reentry, and it goes back to a basic ACLU principle, which is that we over-rely on our incarceral system anyway, and we need to start looking at ways that we can be promoting rehabilitation."

As of January, more than 5,700 people were incarcerated in West Virginia's regional jails, which only have beds for 4,265 inmates, according to state data.

House Bill 3078 passed the House last week by a vote of 93-6. It's also expected to pass the Senate with bipartisan support.


get more stories like this via email

The battle over Jefferson County's 2021 redistricting maps heads to court this week with plaintiffs arguing the map violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

The case, McClure v. Jefferson County Commission, claims Black voters were unfairly packed into two districts, diluting their influence in others.

Zephyr Scalzetti, program specialist for Alabama Values, a nonprofit advocacy group focused on promoting civic engagement, pro-democracy policies and fair representation on issues such as voting rights and redistricting, said the case is about more than lines on a map; it is about ensuring every voter has an equal voice.

"You look at the map overall. Jefferson County residents are willing to elect Black representatives but it is impossible for a Black candidate to win in these three white districts," Scalzetti contended. "The plaintiffs are alleging that this is because those two supermajority Black districts are so packed with Black voters it is diluting their voice."

Jefferson County's five-district system was established in 1985. However, the lawsuit alleges that the 2021 maps are racially gerrymandered and haven't changed much since then. Districts 1 and 2 are still supermajority Black while Districts 3, 4 and 5 remain majority white, limiting influence despite the population of Black residents growing.

Scalzetti noted the case raises significant concerns about transparency in the redistricting process. The lawsuit alleges the commission failed to conduct analyses required by the Voting Rights Act, such as a racially polarized voting study. It also points to limited public input, with key meetings held during work hours and proposed maps only viewable in person at the commission's office.

Scalzetti emphasized the case highlights the importance of local redistricting in shaping representation and ensuring residents have a voice in decisions affecting their daily lives.

"Ultimately, this is about power," Scalzetti asserted. "This is about the power of a community, the power of an individual voter and a group of people to actually affect what is happening in their community."

The trial started on Monday and is taking place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. It is expected to draw comparison to the landmark Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan. Scalzetti added the case could have far-reaching impacts on redistricting, not only in other counties across Alabama but throughout the South.

North Dakota's county jails and state prisons have been bursting at the seams. Elected leaders are calling for meaningful solutions, with legal voices watching in the wings.

Last fall, the state Department of Corrections began using an admissions system likened to a "wait list" because prisons for men were over capacity, and overflow beds in county jails were also full.

In this week's State of the State address, Gov. Kelly Armstrong outlined ideas, including more funding for support services for those involved with the criminal-justice system.

Travis Finck, who oversees the state's public defenders as executive director of the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, said overcrowding poses risks for his team's clients.

"A lot of our clients are held pretrial because they're not able to post any sort of bond or bail amount," he said, "and with the process sometimes being delayed, they are sitting in county jail and not receiving the level of programming that's available at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation."

That roadblock to rehabilitation also can happen after a client is sentenced. Finck agreed with the governor that North Dakota can't just simply add more beds. He said the state has to increase funding for public defenders, arguing there's too much staff turnover, creating continuity issues for clients as their cases proceed.

National groups such as the Rural Democracy Initiative have called for innovation, arguing that jail overcrowding is a big problem in smaller communities, draining local resources.

Meanwhile, Jen Lee, executive director of Legal Services of North Dakota - which helps low-income people in civil cases - said she was encouraged to hear the governor talk about wrap-around issues, such as child care and filling workforce shortages.

"A lot of our clients who are trying to work their way through any kind of legal issue, whether it's a custody battle or a debt or bankruptcy issue that often impacts their ability to be in the workforce fully," she said. "And so, when we solve those problems, they are able to be productive members of the workforce."

Potentially complicating reform efforts is the state attorney general's expected push for a mandatory minimum sentence law. He has argued too many people convicted of violent crimes aren't incarcerated long enough.

Finck said alternative thinking shouldn't be viewed as a lax approach.

"Being smart on crime is not being soft on crime," he said.

He echoed the phrase used by the governor in this week's speech. Finck said he feels the state should build on some of the reform efforts from the past few years as it tries to balance public-safety needs.

By Marilyn Odendahl for The Indiana Citizen.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Indiana Citizen-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration.

One Indiana lawmaker is expecting the Indiana General Assembly to step back this coming session from continually approving requests for more trial court judges and, instead, start shifting judicial resources from slower courts to busier courts.

Rep. Chris Jeter, R-Fishers, said he anticipates legislators will insert language into the biennial budget that will mandate that the Statehouse take a look at the Indiana court system as a whole when considering bills for new judges and magistrate judges. The new language, he said, will probably require a judgeship to be closed somewhere in the state, before a new judgeship is opened.

“I do think that we have gotten in the habit of adding,” Jeter said. “All we’ve done over the last decade is add judges, add judges, but nobody’s ever looked to see are there some counties that maybe we should take them away from?”

The Fishers Republican, who chaired the Interim Study Committee on the Courts and the Judiciary, and will chair the House Judiciary Committee, said the data provided in the Indiana Trial Courts Weighted Caseload Report supports reallocation of existing resources.

According to the 2023 weighted caseload report, the most recent analysis available, Indiana has enough trial court judges, overall, to handle the demands of the docket, but the problem seems to be the distribution of those judicial resources. Identifying a utilization rate of 1.0 as indicating a county has enough judicial officers to meet its needs, the 2023 report calculated Indiana’s utilization rate at 0.98. However, a closer look at the individual counties shows utilization rate swings between Hamilton County’s 1.34 – the most severe in the state – and Union County’s 0.35 – the lowest in the state.

Jeter said he does not believe judges in the state are “sitting around twiddling their thumbs doing nothing” and he realizes that judges in some rural counties are presiding over a wide range of cases from criminal and family to probate and commercial. Yet, he said the legislature has to look at the data.

“I think that what we’ve decided is we don’t need to create any more new judges,” Jeter said. “We have the right number of judges in the state. We just need to get them in the areas that are growing or get them in the areas where the population is.”

Rep. Victoria Garcia Wilburn, D-Fishers, who served on the interim study committee and will be the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, pointed out in a statement to The Indiana Citizen that the members of the interim committee did recommend that judgeships from less busy county trial courts be moved to counties with busier trial courts. However, she noted the General Assembly might need to do more to address the issue.

“It’s critical that we make sure we are maximizing the working time of judges and relieve the burden on high-need counties like Hamilton County,” Garcia Wilburn said in her statement. “At the same time, we need to consider that reallocation may not be a long-term solution and start to explore other thoughtful solutions.”

Cannot continue adding judges

Along with recommending reallocation, the interim study committee advised the legislature to provide additional judges and magistrate judges to Elkhart, Hamilton, Lawrence and Vigo county courts. They rejected a request from Spencer County for a magistrate judge, because that court had a low weighted caseload utilization rate of 0.64.

Hamilton County requested two new Superior Courts, two new judges and two new magistrate judges. Jeter said he plans to carry the bill that would give Hamilton County the additional judicial resources it wants.

Any judgeship approved by the legislature in the 2025 session will probably not be new, Jeter said, but, rather, be created by closing a judgeship in another county. The reallocation will be done in a “fair and humane manner,” he said, by allowing judges in positions or courts targeted for elimination to finish their elected terms before being removed. Consequently, the state’s overall utilization rate could increase because of that lag, but the rate will self-correct as sitting judges in the less busy counties end their tenures on the bench and the judgeships are closed, he said.

The cost of each new judgeship approved by the legislature is covered by taxpayers. A fiscal analysis by the Legislative Services Agency estimated the yearly salary and benefits for a judge and a magistrate judge in 2024 totaled $230,961 and $187,759, respectively.

Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush served on the interim study committee and, according to a spokeswoman, will work with lawmakers on a possible reallocation of trial court judges. However, Kathryn Dolan, Indiana Supreme Court chief public information officer, said Rush does not support reducing the number of judges statewide.

“Chief Justice Rush is supportive of working with the legislature on the best way to allocate judges to meet judicial needs throughout the state,” Dolan said. “A weighted caseload study has been conducted and it shows that Indiana has about the right number of judges, but not necessarily in the right location. Population shifts and caseload changes affect the need for judicial officers in specific areas of the state.”

Although some counties may lose judges and courts through reallocation, Jeter does not anticipate lawmakers will fight hard against it. He acknowledged some legislators might need some convincing, but the idea of shifting judicial resources to the high-need counties has been “floating out there” for some time.

“I think there has been an acknowledgement from both chambers that this is a change we need to make,” Jeter said. “It’s not going to be easy, but I think everybody acknowledges that we need to take the tough medicine and we need to start looking harder and not just keep adding, adding, adding, adding, adding.”


Marilyn Odendahl wrote this article for The Indiana Citizen.


get more stories like this via email