Senate committee advances bill to raise judges' pay, adds pension changes after testimony from judges

A Senate committee adopted a committee substitute for Senate Bill 589 on a voice vote and voted to report the measure to the full Senate with a recommendation for passage, subject to its original double reference to the Senate Finance Committee.

The substitute would raise annual salaries across the judiciary and add multiple changes to judicial pension rules. Supporters including circuit court and family court judges and the administrative director of the West Virginia Supreme Court testified at the committee hearing about workloads, recruitment challenges and how pension changes could offset some near-term cost.

The committee substitute would increase annual pay roughly to these levels, as presented to the committee: a West Virginia Supreme Court justice to about $167,000; an intermediate court judge to about $159,000; a circuit court judge to about $155,000; a family court judge to about $125,000; and a magistrate to about $76,000. The substitute also adds multiple provisions on judicial retirement and survivor benefits that were not in the bill as introduced.

Why it matters: Committee members said higher pay is intended to help retain and attract qualified judges amid heavy caseloads tied to substance use and family-court dockets, while other members raised concern about removing explicit statutory salary language and giving the courts greater administrative discretion over pay scales.

What the bill does

- Salary increases: The committee substitute reported to the panel includes the specific salary levels above for justices and judges. Those figures were taken from the Judicial Compensation Commission recommendation, testimony said.

- Pensions and tiers: The substitute adds a set of retirement provisions. It would change eligibility rules for judges who took the bench after July 1, 2005 (so-called tier 2 judges), allowing some judges to receive a reduced pension benefit after 12 years of service at age 65 where current law requires 16 years. The bill eliminates certain tier-based differences in how survivor and employee benefits are calculated and extends the more generous benefit calculation used for earlier (tier 1) judges to current judges in some cases.

- Survivor benefit: The substitute raises the surviving-spouse benefit to 50% of the member benefit (up from the existing 40%), calculated on annual salary at death or retirement.

- Pension freeze provision: The substitute includes an offset provision that would suspend additional state pension contributions by the court until the pension fund falls below a 50% funding level or July 1, 2029, whichever is sooner.

Fiscal note and testimony

Committee counsel summarized a fiscal projection tied to the salary increases and benefit changes: approximately $4,600,000 in recurring salary cost with an estimated additional benefits load of about $900,000, for a total near $5,500,000. Counsel also said the introduced version of the bill addressed pay raises only; the committee substitute added the retirement sections and technical changes.

Circuit Court Judge Stacy Nowicki Eldridge, testifying as legislative chair of the Judicial Association, said the substitute reflects recommendations from the Judicial Compensation Commission and emphasized judges' heavy dockets, often involving substance use disorder and serious felony matters. "We didn't ask for more. We didn't ask for less. We took the exact numbers that they gave us, and that's what we put into the bill," Eldridge said.

Family Court Judge Britney Ransom Stonestreet described retention issues, telling the committee that family court judges have lost judges to prosecutorial positions and that a raise to about $125,000 "would make a big difference for some of the family court judges who are, having to make decisions based on salary and being able to support their families." Magistrate Jean Ann Lucart and others described frequent, round-the-clock callouts and rising caseloads.

Appropriation and administrative pay-scale concerns

Several senators raised a procedural and constitutional concern: language in related sections could remove fixed statutory salary amounts and replace them with pay scales to be established by the administrative director of the Supreme Court of Appeals. The senior senator from the fourth asked whether that change effectively cedes appropriation authority to the courts. Committee counsel and Keith Hoover, administrative director of the Supreme Court, said the court intends to submit any pay-scale changes through the legislature's budget process and that historically the court has not implemented pay-scale increases without legislative budget approval. Hoover testified that, since he joined the court in 2019, adjustments to pay scales have been pursued only after legislative appropriation.

Committee action and next steps

The committee adopted the committee substitute for SB 589 and voted to report it to the full Senate with a recommendation for passage, under its original double reference (first to the Finance Committee). The measure will be considered next by the Senate Finance Committee as part of the budget-review process.

Ending note

The committee hearing included multiple judges from circuit, family and magistrate benches and drew repeated questions from senators about legislative oversight of pay authority and the tradeoffs between giving courts administrative flexibility and protecting the legislatures appropriation role.