Republicans will continue to control the West Virginia Senate, after the state Supreme Court ended nearly three weeks of uncertainty, ruling that a Republican should fill the Senate seat vacated by Democrat-turned-Republican Daniel Hall.
The court, in an opinion issued Friday, ruled that state code is clear - a legislator who switched parties after being elected should be replaced by someone from the same party as the resigning legislator was when he quit.
Hall was elected as a Democrat in 2012, but switched parties in 2014 and resigned as a Republican to become a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
The court ruled 3-1 in favor of the Republicans, with Justice Margaret Workman writing the majority opinion. Justice Robin Davis dissented, but has not yet filed a dissenting opinion. Chief Justice Menis Ketchum and Justice Allen Loughry each wrote separate concurring opinions.
Ketchum's concurring opinion, just one paragraph long, recognizes the political nature of the case and gives a harsh view of his own Democratic Party.
"I realize that my vote in this case effectively eliminates any chance of my being reelected to our Supreme Court," wrote Ketchum, who is not up for re-election until 2020. "Nevertheless, I took an oath to impartially apply our laws and I promised to set political favoritism aside. The statute in this case is clear."
The court's decision means the Senate will revert to the 18-16 Republican majority that they gained when Hall switched parties the day after the 2014 elections.
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat, on Friday appointed Naomi "Sue" Cline, a Republican, to the vacant seat.
Cline, of Brenton, ran unsuccessfully for House of Delegates in 2014. She will be the second woman currently in the state Senate, to go with 32 men.
Tomblin had said all along that he would abide by the court's decision. Republican Senate leaders had not said whether they would agree to recognize a Democrat in Hall's seat - a question that became moot with the court's decision.
Since Hall's Jan. 4 resignation, the Senate has been controlled by Republicans, with a slim 17-16 majority, with the unresolved issue looming large over the early days of the legislative session.
The state Democratic Party had filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, arguing that Hall's replacement should reflect the will of the voters, who elected a Democrat.
Loughry, in his concurring opinion, called the lawsuit "a thinly veiled attempt to bait the members of this court into a partisan resolution.
"Neither this court nor any court is constituted for the purpose of being played as a political trump card," Loughry wrote.
State law says that Tomblin should appoint a replacement from a list "submitted by the party and with which the person holding the office immediately preceding the vacancy was affiliated."
Republicans read that "immediately preceding" as referring to Hall's party. He was a Republican immediately preceding his resignation, so the replacement should be a Republican, they said during oral arguments at the state Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Democrats said the "immediately preceding" refers to Hall himself, not his party. They said the code is ambiguous, and thus the replacement should respect the will of the voters, who elected a Democrat.
Workman wrote that the Democrats' interpretation of the statue was "profoundly strained and constitutes a misreading of statutory language that is clear in its meaning.
"It is undisputed that Senator Hall was affiliated with the Republican Party immediately preceding the vacancy and had been so affiliated since November 2014. The legislature's use of the phrase 'immediately preceding the vacancy' is manifestly plain," Workman wrote. "Dissatisfied with the text of the statute, the petitioners sought to identify and apply an overarching legislative goal that purports to promote the will of the voters. However, an analysis which fails to provide reasonable meaning to the phrase 'immediately preceding the vacancy' is wholly improper."
Workman wrote that the Democrats' attempts to point to court decisions in other states were also improper, as the laws were not comparable.
In oral arguments, Davis had made the case that while state code may be clear - favoring the Republicans - it may also be unconstitutional, as it would disenfranchise the Democrats who voted for Hall, when he was a Democrat.
But the court disagreed.
Workman wrote that the specific section of state code has "minimal" effects on the rights of citizens to elect their representatives.
"The effect does not fall disproportionately on a discreet group of voters or political parties and affects both political parties equally, depending in each instance upon the party affiliation of the person creating a vacancy," she wrote. "Equal treatment of voters, based upon an unforeseeable event such as the changing of political parties and a subsequent vacancy, does not constitute a violation of equal protection."
During oral arguments, Davis also repeatedly chastised the Democrats for not focusing more on the constitutional argument.
The court, in its opinion, hinted that could have made a difference.
The relevant U.S. Supreme Court case "was not significantly addressed" in the Democrats' brief, nor was a constitutional argument "advanced in a thorough manner," Workman wrote, in a footnote.
Justice Brent Benjamin, who is up for re-election this year, recused himself from the case before it began, and Ketchum did not appoint a replacement for him. Workman, Davis and Ketchum are Democrats; Loughry and Benjamin are Republicans.
The West Virginia Democratic Party sued over Hall's vacancy on Jan. 8, and officials from both political parties in Hall's 9th Senatorial District each submitted a list of three names to replace him on Jan. 12. By law, the governor had five days to appoint a replacement after he received those names, but the Supreme Court ordered him to wait until they had ruled in the case.
The 9th District includes Raleigh and Wyoming counties and a small part of northern McDowell County.
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5119 or follow @davidlgutman on Twitter.