Daily Brew: Battle of the branches of government unfolding in West Virginia

July 5, 2018

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to be investigated + Signatures filed for Arizona initiative prohibiting new service taxes and fees   West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals to be investigated The West Virginia House of Delegates unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment investigation into justices on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and to make recommendations to the full House of Delegates based on findings. The resolution noted the filing of a formal statement of charges and an indictment against Justice Allen Loughry in June 2018 but also stated, "The Court’s actions and/or inactions have raised concerns that require further consideration and investigation by this body. Some or all of the five members of the Court may be guilty of maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, or high crimes or misdemeanors, and may be unfit to serve as Chief Justice or as Justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals." According to the Brennan Center for Justice, only two state Supreme Court justices have been impeached since 1993 —one in Pennsylvania (1993-1994) in which a state Supreme Court justice was removed from office and one in New Hampshire (2000) in which a state Supreme Court justice was impeached by the state House, but the state Senate declined to remove the justice from office. The earliest record of impeachment in West Virginia was in 1875 against the state treasurer and the state auditor. The treasurer was removed from office and the auditor was acquitted by the state Senate. The most recent impeachment proceeding in West Virginia was in March 1989, when the House brought 17 articles of impeachment against state Treasurer A. James Manchin. Manchin resigned before the state Senate could conduct a trial. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet around July 9. Learn more         Signatures filed for Arizona initiative prohibiting new service taxes and fees Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan reported Tuesday that 406,353 signatures were filed for a ballot initiative to prohibit the state and local governments from imposing new taxes or fees on services. Services is a broad category that includes not-tangible purchases, such as childcare, banking, advertising, and healthcare services. The measure would not affect taxes in place on December 31, 2017. Citizens for Fair Tax Policy, a political action committee, is leading the campaign in support of the initiative. According to the group, Arizona does not impose a sales tax on most services, but they want to take preemptive action against legislation to impose a sales tax on services. “Other states, such as North Carolina, Washington and now Oklahoma, have started imposing new sales taxes on services this year. The threat is real because politicians often share bad ideas, and a sales tax on services is a bad idea for all Arizonans,” said the PAC. State  Sen. Steve Farley (D), who is running for governor in 2018, criticized the proposal, saying, “They're cutting off any ability of people to fund that stuff in the future as the economy changes.” House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (R) did not take a position on the initiative, but said, “From a philosophical standpoint on how government should be run, I tend to believe that public officials need the flexibility to govern. So putting restrictions on their ability isn’t helpful.” Citizens for Fair Tax Policy is the first group to file signatures for a ballot initiative in Arizona in 2018. At least 225,963 (55.61 percent) of the filed signatures need to be valid for the initiative to make the ballot for the election on November 6. Learn more→ Trump administration rescinds Obama-era guidance documents, including race considerations for higher education The Trump administration rescinded 24 guidance documents Tuesday that were issued under the Obama administration. The documents included guidance from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) encouraging institutions of higher education to consider race as a factor in the admissions process as a means to achieving student diversity. The DOE guidance provided legal recommendations and contextual examples for schools considering race as a component of the admissions process. The decision to rescind the DOE's guidance occurred following an investigation launched by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the summer of 2017 regarding allegations that Harvard University discriminated against Asian-American applicants. Federal agencies issue guidance documents in order to explain, interpret, or advise interested parties about agency rules, laws, and procedures. In his announcement on rescinding the guidance documents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that the DOE and other agencies are required to adopt new regulations through the rulemaking process, which provides members of the public with the opportunity to offer feedback on proposed rules during public comment periods. He discouraged the agency from implementing regulations through guidance documents—a practice he described as “not good government." Learn more→