West Virginia House of Delegates considers changes to public records access
The West Virginia House of Delegates is considering a bill that would allow the Legislature to write its own rules for disclosing public records, but House Speaker Roger Hanshaw said the intent is not to hide records.
Journalists, researchers and members of the public use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to lawmakers' emails, presentations and more that can shed light on how decisions are being made. The emails can reveal what lobbyists or special interest groups are involved in bill making. Some communications are exempt.
House Bill 3412, sponsored by Hanshaw, R-Clay, would exempt the Legislature from requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, if it adopts its own rules.
The House Rules Committee reviewed the measure Wednesday.
Current state FOIA law does not differentiate between the state's court system, the executive branch and the legislature, Hanshaw said. He told committee members individuals often use FOIA to access drafts of bills that are never introduced.
FOIA laws have existed since 1966.
Hanshaw wants the House to write rules that make it clear to the public what is and is not a public record.
'One of the objections sought to be achieved by this particular piece of legislation is clarification of what is and isn't a legislative record that can actually be reachable by those who simply seek access to legislative records,' he said.
Doug Skaff, interim director of the West Virginia Press Association, appeared before lawmakers to question if the bill would affect journalists' access to legislative records.
'We just want to make sure that these laws provide a legal basis and a framework that government records, meetings and all the doings within the public body of this Capitol is available to recognized media outlets in this state,' Skaff said. 'We think we owe it to the people of West Virginia to discuss and spread the information that happens under this dome.'
Hanshaw said that he views the media as partners who disseminate the information about what happens at the Capitol.
'We think we have a pretty constructive relationship with our media partners right now … we realize that the press is not the only user of the Freedom of Information statute,' Hanshaw said.
'We would be supportive as long as it doesn't restrict the right of the media to do their job,' Skaff responded.
Ann Ali, deputy chief of staff and communications director for the House of Delegates, said in an email that the intent of the bill is not to hide public records and that Hanshaw wants any legislative records currently available to the public to remain available to the public.
'However — the intent is also to exempt the Legislature from FOIA and to adopt open records rules the Legislature would follow, because there may be instances when FOIA doesn't fit the specifics of what the Legislature is or does,' she said. If the change is adopted, people would cite a rule rather than the Freedom of Information Act in a request for public documents, she said.
While House Minority Leader Sean Hornbuckle has concern about the bill, he feels that it would still permit the media to access records for reporting.
'It appears it has to do more with people outside the state who might have ulterior motives. I do feel better [about it],' said Hornbuckle, D-Cabell.
The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia also has concerns with the bill.
'First the Senate limited recording in the chamber. Then, the House did away with public hearings. Now they want to exempt the Legislature entirely from open records laws,' ACLU-WV Advocacy Director Rusty Williams said in a statement. 'They won't be satisfied until they're passing their harmful, extremist agenda entirely in private. Enough is enough. We have a right to know what our elected leaders are up to.'
In order for the change to go into effect, the bill would first have to become law. Next, the House would have to create then adopt its own rules in order for the new FOIA rules to go into effect. Without a rule, the default would be the current FOIA statute, Hanshaw said.
The Senate could adopt the rules to become regulations that apply to both bodies, according to Hanshaw.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republican spending bill could deal a huge blow to abortion access in California
Access to abortion in California could be substantially reduced if the House passes President Donald Trump's budget bill. The legislation, now awaiting a final vote in the House, would eliminate federal Medicaid funding for any type of medical care to organizations that perform abortions. An earlier version of the bill would have cut the funds off for 10 years, but lawmakers supporting the measure limited it to the 2025-26 fiscal year before the latest vote. Even so, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, says it may have to close about one-third of its 600 U.S. clinics if it lost all $700 million of the federal funds it receives annually from Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. Planned Parenthood says its 115 clinics in California serve about one-third of its patients nationwide — nearly 1 million per year, about 80% of whom are low-income patients on Medi-Cal. Clinics that remain open, for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, might have to limit their services without increased funding from private donors or from state and local governments. That means cancers would go undetected, sexually transmitted infections would be untreated and birth control would be less available. 'The public health infrastructure of California's most vulnerable communities will break down,' said Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Shelby McMichael, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson, said Wednesday that the organization 'worked with the state to ensure that these reproductive health services were in the state budget' for 2025-26, which includes funding for the clinics. But McMichael told the Chronicle that the federal legislation was 'effectively a back-door abortion ban, even in a state like California where voters have affirmed that it's a constitutional right.' She was referring to a ballot measure approved by two-thirds of the state's voters in November 2022, five months after the Supreme Court repealed the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that it had declared in 1973. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the congressional action was 'a major step toward ending the forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry — a crucial victory in the fight against abortion, America's leading cause of death.' Congress cut off federal abortion funding for low-income women in the Medicaid program with the Hyde Amendment in 1977. A 1981 California Supreme Court decision has enabled the state to replace the federal dollars with its own funds for Medi-Cal abortions. California's laws would not be changed by the cutoff of federal funding to abortion providers. But by forcing shutdowns of abortion clinics and reductions in services from those that remain open, the congressional legislation would make it harder for many Californians to find abortion providers. 'Medi-Cal patients will have less places to turn for care, for any type of reproductive health care services, including abortion,' said Melissa Goodman, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. 'The federal effort to defund those who provide abortion services is a key tactic for restricting abortion access in states that protect abortion by radically shrinking the pool of abortion providers who can afford to continue operating.' Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and author of several books on reproductive law, said some health care providers in California may have to stop providing abortions because of the loss of funding. Or, she said, they 'may have to scale back other services, their wait times may get longer or they may close.' In a separate action in March, the Trump administration ordered withdrawal of federal funding to California and other states for Title X, which pays for family planning programs for low-income residents and those who lack insurance. Those programs would have had to close without state funding, which was provided in the newly enacted 2025-26 budget. But on Wednesday, Essential Access Health, a nonprofit that administers Title X grants in California, said it had been notified by the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services that the state would receive $12.2 million in Title X funding this year, about $1 million less than last year's family-planning funds. McMichael, of Planned Parenthood, said the state budget also includes funding to make up for the federal reduction. 'We recognize that this may be only a temporary reprieve,' as the administration could change course again in the coming months, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, a spokesperson for Essential Access Health. She said advocates of the funding have sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, D.C. over nationwide reductions in Title X funding. Federal courts blocked a similar action by Trump's first administration in 2019. The congressional budget vote comes in the wake of the latest legal victory for abortion opponents, a Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to eliminate all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood or any other health care provider that also performs abortions. The state had banned the funding in 2018, saying funds provided for other services could be diverted by the providers to pay for abortions. A federal appeals court said the cutoff violated a 1965 federal law that requires states to allow Medicaid patients to receive services at any qualified institution. But in a 6-3 ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood on June 26, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the law could be enforced only by the federal government, not by private parties like Planned Parenthood or the patient who joined the suit. Although the ruling applied only to states with laws against abortion funding, it could also affect states like California, which has provided abortions and other reproductive care for women who have been denied treatment in their home state.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
How Rhode Island finally pushed a partial assault weapons ban over the finish line
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Passing a new law restricting assault weapons took Rhode Island lawmakers more than 10 years, but it may offer a road map to other states looking to ease the proliferation of such firearms. For advocates, the fight is a prime example of the current challenges to passing gun control measures in the U.S., particularly surrounding semiautomatic rifles that have become the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. When Rhode Island's bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Dan McKee late last month, its sponsor, Democratic Rep. Jason Knight, told jubilant supporters: 'What was once the impossible became the inevitable.' How? Persistent advocacy, a change in legislative leadership and a last-minute overhaul to note the broader legal landscape. What did Rhode Island do? Rhode Island's ban, which goes into effect in 2026, prohibits the sale, manufacturing and distribution of certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide. The law does not prohibit possessing such weapons, a key distinction compared with other assault weapon bans enacted elsewhere in the U.S. Currently, only Washington state has a similar law . A leadership change helped propel momentum The assault weapons ban got a much-needed boost from Senate President Valerie Lawson, who secured the Senate's top spot in the middle of session after her predecessor, Sen. Dominick Ruggiero, died in April. Lawson turned to the bill's sponsors and others to find common ground between lawmakers in the House and Senate who remained split on how far the law should go. Lawson's endorsement was seen as critical to securing the bill's passage, whereas Ruggiero had previously deferred action, pointing instead to the need for Congress to act rather than a state Legislature taking the lead. 'There are issues at certain points that meet the moment,' Lawson said. 'I think it was the time for this.' Gun control advocates also acknowledged that banning assault weapons in Rhode Island hadn't previously been a top priority given that the state has largely been spared from national high-profile shootings that sometimes help propel legislative change. Assault weapons bans consistently face court challenges In the U.S., just 11 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of prohibition on certain high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide . Rhode Island's version is the only one not yet facing a constitutional challenge — though a lawsuit against it is all but assured. Certain state legal battles are on hold until others make their way through lower federal courts. To date, none of the lawsuits have been completely thrown out, but the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to have the final say. As Rhode Island lawmakers were in the middle of their gun debate, the high court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban — a move that some of the more conservative justices opposed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even signaled that laws banning assault weapons are likely unconstitutional. 'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote, referencing a popular style of high-powered rifle. Yet the legal focus on banning such weapons often hinges on possessing firearms such as AR-15-style rifles and AK-47s, rather than on the distribution process. Rhode Island lawmakers hope that by tailoring their assault weapons ban to sales, manufacturing and distribution, they might will bypass the thorniest legal questions raised by the Second Amendment. What other states are doing Attempts to expand Democratic-dominated Hawaii's assault weapons ban to rifles in addition to pistols stalled this year. In New Mexico, Democratic lawmakers who control the General Assembly adjourned without taking up an assault weapon ban. In Rhode Island, advocates say their work isn't over. 'It's progress,' said Melissa Carden, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. 'But we know that a true assault weapons ban includes an enforceable ban on possession as well.' Defenders of Rhode Island's law bristle that their version could be considered weak. They point out that residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will be blocked. That's because federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. 'Some of my constituents have already called me and made comments about 'bad, bad bad, I'm going out and buying three and four of them now,'' said Sen. Louis DiPalma, the Senate sponsor of the statute. 'Okay, come July 1st next year, you will not be able to do that anymore.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Live updates: Trump closing in on 'big win' with final House vote on tax bill
A final House vote is expected Thursday for President Trump's second-term agenda on tax reductions, immigration enforcement and deep Medicaid cuts. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is closing in on a big second-term win on his signature legislative package of tax reductions and Medicaid changes as House Republicans get ready to hold a final vote on July 3 to send the bill to the president's desk by their Independence Day deadline. But there still is a drop of drama ahead. After an all-day revolt on July 2 from conservative Republicans over the bill's soaring price tag, the House will hold another vote as soon as this morning that will force members to side for or against Trump's $3.3 trillion domestic agenda, ending taxes on tips and overtime, cutting Medicaid, and bolstering border security. 'We're in a good place right now," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, told reporters after "a long, productive day" meeting with skeptical colleagues. "This is the legislative process. This is exactly how I think the framers intended for it to work. Trump and Republicans leaders in Congress are now on the cusp of a major victory. The GOP captured a power trifecta during the 2024 elections and has used that political muscle to force their bill through both chambers at a rapid-fire pace, despite deep reservations within their own party. The House approved its initial version of the bill on a 215-214 vote in May. After four days of marathon debate and voting, the Senate approved its version in a 51-50 vote July 1. Three Republicans voted no and Vice President JD Vance broke the tie. "The bill passed, and I think it's going to do very well in the House," Trump told reporters July 1 after the Senate vote. "We'll see how that works out, but it looks like it's ahead of schedule." As the House opened debate July 2 on the Senate-passed measure, Trump spent his time out of the public eye with no events scheduled. In the morning, the president, Vance, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz and other Republican lawmakers huddled at the White House with reluctant GOP lawmakers, including South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, who later described the talks as 'really productive.' Multiple House Republicans who preferred their version of the bill remained throughout the day opposed to the Senate version, including members of the Freedom Caucus, which aims to cut federal spending. Their concerns were partly to blame for Johnson and GOP leaders holding open a series of procedural floor votes while working behind the scenes to line up support. "There won't be any vote until we can get satisfied," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina, said, adding he was aware of about 25 lawmakers have lingering concerns about the bill. "Look, I got problems with all this bill. I got trouble with all of it.' Ultimately, Johnson and the House jolted into overnight action and approved a plan that bars any amendments that would change the Senate-passed version of the bill. That's what sets up the expected July 3 vote and a chance to deliver for Trump, who has been urging lawmakers to send him the bill by Independence Day while also acknowledging the timeline is flexible. Any House changes made to the legislation mean it would need to be sent back to the Senate, which has already left Washington for the Independence Day holiday and is not scheduled to return until July 7. Hakeem Jeffries slams Trump's bill in 'magic minute' speech Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized Trump's sweeping tax and domestic policy bill under a procedural tactic known as 'magic minute,' which allows party leaders to have unlimited speaking time on the floor. Jeffries' speech started shortly before 5 a.m., as the bill moves closer to passing the House, and it has already stretched past an hour. 'I rise today in strong opposition to Donald Trump's disgusting abomination…that guts Medicaid, rips food from the mouths of children, seniors and veterans, and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks,' Jeffries said. He condemned the cuts in spending for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the bill, arguing that the cost of living is too high. 'Cruelty should never be the objective or the outcome of legislation that we consider here in the House of Representatives,' he said. - Sudiksha Kochi
