Clarifying the declaration of a State of Preparedness by executive orders of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature.
HB3423 would revise West Virginia’s emergency-management law to simplify the state’s “state of preparedness” framework. The bill removes the current two-class structure for preparedness and replaces it with a single level, while keeping the existing ability for the Governor or the Legislature to declare a preparedness status by executive order or concurrent resolution. It also aligns the preparedness framework more closely with the state’s existing rules for a state of emergency, including time limits, extension procedures, termination procedures, and required contents of proclamations and resolutions.
The bill preserves broad emergency powers for the Governor during a declared state of emergency or state of preparedness, including control over emergency services, procurement and use of resources, evacuation authority, movement restrictions, temporary housing, and other actions needed to protect public safety. It also specifies that a state of preparedness has the same effect as a state of emergency for purposes of interstate mutual aid and the statewide mutual aid system. At the same time, it reinforces limits on those powers by stating that they cannot violate constitutional protections or certain statutory prohibitions, and it preserves restrictions on actions affecting houses of worship, firearms, and the news media.
In practical terms, the bill would amend §15-5-6 of the West Virginia Code, changing how preparedness declarations are classified and administered under the state’s emergency-management statutes. It would also affect how executive orders and legislative resolutions are drafted, how long preparedness declarations may last, and how they interact with later emergency declarations. The bill further limits legal challenges to such executive orders by channeling them into specific extraordinary-writ procedures and excluding application of §55-17-3.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is administrative and clarifying rather than controversial: the stated purpose is to simplify the law by eliminating two classes of preparedness and creating one uniform level. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available record. However, the text itself suggests likely areas of sensitivity around executive authority, emergency powers, and protections for churches, firearms, and the press, which are explicitly preserved from restriction.
HB3423 would amend West Virginia Code §15-5-6 governing emergency management, primarily by consolidating the state’s preparedness declarations into a single level and standardizing the procedures and effects of preparedness orders. It would preserve and clarify the Governor’s and Legislature’s authority to declare preparedness or emergency conditions, while maintaining existing limits on duration, extensions, and termination. The bill also reinforces that preparedness declarations carry the same mutual-aid consequences as emergency declarations and narrows the procedural path for legal challenges to executive orders issued under this section.
The available materials indicate a generally neutral, technical purpose: simplifying and clarifying the law governing states of preparedness. The bill was introduced by request of the Department of Homeland Security’s Division of Emergency Management, which suggests agency support for the administrative cleanup. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The text nonetheless shows an intent to preserve existing constitutional and statutory protections while streamlining emergency-management classifications.
The main potential points of contention are the scope of executive power during emergencies and preparedness declarations, and the bill’s explicit protections for churches, firearms, and the news media. The measure preserves broad gubernatorial authority to control movement, resources, and emergency operations, which could concern those wary of emergency overreach. At the same time, it bars restrictions on houses of worship beyond the least restrictive treatment of essential facilities, prohibits limits on lawful firearm-related activity, and restricts interference with the press. The bill also limits judicial challenges to extraordinary-writ procedures, which may be viewed as narrowing access to ordinary litigation remedies.