Requiring resolution passed by Legislature to include language to be included on official ballots
Summary
SB 877 would amend West Virginia election law governing proposed constitutional amendments by requiring the Legislature, in the joint resolution submitting an amendment to the voters, to include the exact ballot language that will appear on the official ballot. Under current law, the Legislature must assign a title and summary, and if it does not, the Secretary of State fills in the omission for ballot purposes. This bill would shift greater responsibility to the Legislature to prescribe the ballot description itself, while preserving the existing requirement that the amendment’s title, summary, and description be printed on the ballot alongside the for/against choices.
The bill also retains the current framework for numbering amendments, designating the election at which they will be submitted, and having county ballot commissioners place the amendment information on the ballot or ballot label. In practical terms, the measure is aimed at making the ballot text for constitutional amendments more directly controlled by the Legislature and more closely tied to the language of the joint resolution.
Impact
If enacted, SB 877 would amend §§3-11-2 and 3-11-4 of the West Virginia Code to require that joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments include the ballot description language to be used on official ballots. This would affect the drafting of future constitutional amendment resolutions, the Secretary of State’s role in supplying missing ballot language, and the work of county ballot commissioners who prepare ballots for elections involving proposed amendments. The bill would not change the basic process for submitting constitutional amendments to voters, but it would make the Legislature’s resolution the primary source for the ballot description.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other discussion, so there is no documented debate or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears procedural and administrative rather than substantive, focusing on ballot drafting and election administration. The absence of recorded committee action or votes means the overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s neutral, technical framing.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the allocation of authority over ballot language for constitutional amendments. Supporters may view the bill as ensuring that voters see language chosen directly by the Legislature and reducing ambiguity or inconsistency in ballot descriptions. Critics could argue that requiring the Legislature to prescribe the exact ballot language may reduce flexibility, increase the risk of partisan drafting, or limit the Secretary of State’s ability to correct omissions. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, no specific legislator, committee member, or stakeholder position is documented in the record.