SB 950 repeals West Virginia Code §6-7-5, the statute governing mileage and expense reimbursement for judges. As enrolled, the bill is a straightforward repeal measure: it removes the existing statutory provision from the Code of West Virginia and leaves no replacement language in its place. The bill was passed by both chambers and is set to take effect 90 days after passage, on June 12, 2026.
In practical terms, the bill eliminates the specific statutory authority that had addressed judges’ mileage and expense allowances. That means the state’s laws will no longer contain this separate section for judicial travel reimbursement and related expenses, and any future treatment of those costs would need to come from other law, policy, or administrative practice rather than this repealed provision. The measure affects judges and the state entities responsible for compensating or reimbursing judicial expenses.
Impact
The bill amends the West Virginia Code by repealing §6-7-5 in its entirety, removing the statutory section titled "Mileage and expenses of judges." This changes state law by deleting the express legal provision governing judicial travel and expense reimbursement, which may affect how such costs are authorized, calculated, or administered going forward. Judges, court administration, and any state budget or payroll processes tied to this statute are the primary affected parties.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and received unanimous support in both chambers. It passed the Senate 32-0 and the House 92-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. No committee transcripts were provided, but the voting history suggests a generally favorable and routine reception.
Contention
No notable points of contention are evident in the available record. The bill moved through both chambers without any recorded dissent, and there are no committee discussion transcripts indicating disagreement over whether judges should continue to receive mileage or expense reimbursement under this specific statute. Any concerns would likely have centered on administrative or fiscal implications, but none are reflected in the voting history provided.