West Virginia Supreme Court Dismisses Democratic Challenge Over House Seat Left Vacant by Arrested Delegate-Elect

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A legal battle unfolding in West Virginia centers around the unsettled occupancy of a House of Delegates seat, following the controversial actions of former Delegate-elect Joseph de Soto. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has recently dismissed a second lawsuit from the Democratic Party aiming to secure the post for a Democrat, a case that amplifies the ongoing political turmoil in the state.

Joseph de Soto, previously a Republican but later switching allegiance to the Democrats, had won a seat in the 91st District. However, complications arose after he was charged with making terroristic threats against fellow Republican members in December, preventing him from fulfilling the constitutional requirement to take his oath in the House chamber.

In response, the House declared the seat forfeited during a Jan. 8 organizational session through the adoption of House Resolution 4. This resolution deemed the seat to remain Republican, mandating Governor Patrick Morrisey to fill it with a candidate from the same party, leading to the appointment of Republican Ian Masters.

Challenging this decision, Democrats, led by Del. Mike Pushkin and local resident Jill Michaels, sought a writ of mandamus to claim de Soto’s right to the seat despite his legal troubles and subsequent house arrest. Their appeal reflected broader party efforts to control the disputed seat, which they argue should align with de Soto’s current Democratic affiliation.

The court’s ruling against the Democrats was pinned on procedural grounds—the failure to give a timely 30-day pre-suit notice to the state, as required by state law. This dismissal underscores the procedural rigors that often determine the course of political legal disputes.

De Soto’s arrest stemmed from alarming threats directed at other lawmakers after a heated internal party meeting on Dec. 8. The discourse escalated following allegations of de Soto fabricating details about his military service. This incident has not only led to his legal woes but also resulted in two Republican House members securing protective orders against him, prohibiting his presence in the Capitol through most of the next legislative session.

The Democrats, however, contested the premise of his seat forfeiture, highlighting that de Soto did not refuse to take the oath—a state constitutional provision for declaring a seat vacant. They argue that an expulsion would have been the correct procedure, now presenting the seat as rightfully Democratic due to de Soto’s party switch.

An initial lawsuit involving Morrisey and House Speaker Roger Hanshaw also remains in limbo, with proceedings automatically stayed until after the legislative session concludes in mid-May. This automatic stay is a safeguard that shields lawmakers from legal actions during active legislative periods.

The entangled legal and political saga reflects not only a fight over one legislative seat but also underscores broader questions about party allegiance, procedural adherence, and the implications of personal conduct on public service in West Virginia.

This article was automatically generated by Open AI, based on reported information available. The details about people, events, and circumstances may not be entirely accurate. For corrections or removal requests, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.