Senate committee approves $8,000 pay increase and pension changes for judges in committee substitute for SB 589

Senate Judiciary Committee members approved the committee substitute for the committee substitute for Senate Bill 589, a proposal that would increase the salaries of Supreme Court, intermediate appellate, circuit, family court judges and magistrates by $8,000 and alter several provisions of the judges' retirement system. The committee voted the measure to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass, to be considered first by the finance committee.

The bill would allow a state employer contribution holiday until fiscal year 2030 or until the retirement plan's funded ratio drops below 150 percent, whichever comes first. Legislative counsel explained the measure would save “about anywhere between $1.2 to $1.4 million per year” while the holiday is in place and that “the total cost of the increased salary is a little over $3,000,000, counting increased benefits.”

Why it matters: The proposal combines an across-the-board pay increase with changes to pension calculations and survivor benefits that supporters say are intended to improve judicial recruitment and retention. Opponents and some committee members raised questions about long-term funding and whether the courts can absorb costs through their existing budgets.

Legislative counsel described several retirement changes in the committee substitute: permitting judges to receive a reduced annuity after 12 years of service; increasing surviving spouse benefits from 40 percent to 50 percent of the member benefit; eliminating distinctions created in and after February 2005 so that newer judges would receive benefits calculated on the same basis as pre‑2005 judges; and adjusting how retirement pay is calculated. Counsel also said the bill removes a provision that would have allowed courts to set staff pay scales and that the $8,000 increase reflected a reduction from earlier proposals that would have produced larger raises for some judges.

Ken Woodson, the Consolidated Public Retirement Board actuary, told the committee the judges' retirement plan is “currently, the plan, I believe, is funded at around 250%.” Woodson said that under middle‑of‑the‑road projections the plan would remain above 200 percent for the foreseeable future and that a funded ratio above 150 percent was likely to continue under normal conditions. He also supplied a snapshot of plan assets: “as of 07/01/2024, it’s $306,000,000,” he said.

Judge David Hammer, a circuit judge who spoke for the Judicial Association, argued the changes support judicial quality and experience. “Number 1, quality counts. Number 2, experience matters,” Hammer said, adding that the revisions restore a single‑tier approach to retirement calculation and raise the survivor annuity to better cover continuing household expenses after the death of a spouse.

Family court judges also urged action. Judge Heather Wood of Wheeling said family court judges are paid “bottom of the barrel” wages and described operating without law clerks or reporters: “I’m the one recording my own proceedings. I’m the one who is writing all my orders,” she said, describing heavy caseloads and largely pro se litigants.

Committee action and next steps: The committee agreed to the committee substitute for the committee substitute for SB 589 by voice vote. The vice chair moved that the measure be reported to the full Senate with the recommendation that it pass, first to be referred to the finance committee; that motion was adopted. The committee did not record individual recorded roll‑call vote counts in the transcript; the minutes state the motion passed on an “aye” voice vote.

Questions raised during debate included where the additional cost beyond the employer contribution holiday would be budgeted; Liz Schinzelors, policy counsel for the Supreme Court of Appeals, said the court’s requested operating budget did not include the remaining cost and that the court has “tried to keep our budget very lean.” Committee members also asked for projections of funded‑ratio timing and for comparisons that would show how the proposed raise would change West Virginia judges’ pay ranking among neighboring states. Members asked staff to provide follow‑up information and lawmakers noted the bill’s fiscal impacts will be relevant when the finance committee reviews it.