West Virginia Senate Bill SB210

West Virginia 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/22
• Refer: 1/12/22

Caption

Relating to measures Governor may make during state of emergency

Impact

The proposed bill seeks to clarify and potentially limit the extent of powers exercised by the Governor and state agencies during emergencies. It asserts that no actions may be taken that would inhibit the operations of private businesses or religious organizations, thereby promoting a more hands-off approach from the state during emergencies. Additionally, it grants the right for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses, to seek legal recourse if they believe their rights have been violated, which could significantly impact the state's legal landscape regarding emergency regulation.

Summary

Senate Bill 210 aims to amend certain provisions of the West Virginia Code related to the emergency powers of the Governor, particularly during times of declared emergencies. The bill outlines the specific powers the Governor retains during these times and introduces limitations on governmental actions, specifically protecting the rights of individuals, businesses, and religious entities. One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the stipulation that the mask mandate imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic would be lifted upon the bill's passage.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding SB210 reveal a divided sentiment among stakeholders. Supporters emphasize the need for personal freedoms and business operability, arguing that government overreach during emergencies can have detrimental effects on the economy and civil liberties. Conversely, critics express concern that the bill undermines necessary emergency measures that may be required to protect public health and safety, particularly during a pandemic. The debate highlights contrasting views on the balance between emergency powers and civil rights.

Contention

Notable points of contention within the discussions include the bill's approach to legal recourse for individuals and businesses aggrieved by governmental actions during emergencies. Critics argue that allowing individuals to contest emergency orders could lead to confusion and hinder swift governmental action during crises. Supporters counter that this oversight is essential to prevent abuses of power. Furthermore, the bill's intention to end the mask mandate has sparked significant debate, with public health advocates cautioning against potential risks to public safety should the bill be enacted.