A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-69.6 and 16.1-69.6:1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to twenty-seventh judicial district; boundary of judicial district; number of judges.
HB745 proposes changes to Virginia’s court district structure by amending the statutes that define judicial district boundaries and the maximum number of judges assigned to each district. The bill specifically revises the composition of the twenty-seventh judicial district and creates a new twenty-seven-A district. Under the bill, the existing twenty-seventh district would include the City of Galax and the Counties of Pulaski, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, and Grayson, while district twenty-seven-A would also include the City of Galax and the Counties of Pulaski, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, and Grayson. The bill also updates the table of authorized judgeships for general district court and juvenile and domestic relations district court judges to reflect the new district configuration.
If enacted, HB745 would amend §§ 16.1-69.6 and 16.1-69.6:1 of the Code of Virginia, changing the statutory map of judicial districts for courts not of record and adjusting the maximum number of judges for affected districts. The practical effect would be to alter where judges serve and how many judges may be assigned in the affected western Virginia localities, with implications for court administration, judicial elections or appointments, and caseload distribution in the general district and juvenile and domestic relations courts.
The available record suggests limited public debate and no recorded floor votes, but the committee action indicates the bill was not advanced. HB745 was stricken from the docket by the House Committee on Courts of Justice on an 18-0 vote, which suggests unanimous committee opposition or a decision not to move the bill forward despite the absence of recorded dissent in the available materials.
The main issue appears to be the proposed redrawing of the twenty-seventh judicial district and the creation of a new twenty-seven-A district, along with the associated judge allocation changes. Such proposals can raise concerns about administrative efficiency, local representation, workload balance, and whether the new district structure is necessary or duplicative. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific objections are not documented, but the unanimous committee action indicates that members were not persuaded to advance the measure.