photo by: W.Va. Legislative Photography
State Senate Finance Committee Chairman Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, left, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Trump, R-Morgan debate Friday whether the CROWN Act should be sent to the Finance Committee.
CHARLESTON — Members of the West Virginia Senate referred a bill dealing with discrimination over hairstyles to the Senate Finance Committee Friday with no price tag, while lawmakers advanced another bill dealing with work requirements for SNAP recipients that was still awaiting a fiscal note.
The Senate adopted a motion to refer Senate Bill 496, prohibiting racial discrimination based on certain hair textures and hairstyles, to the Senate Finance Committee in a 22-12 vote, pitting a bipartisan group of bill supporters against a majority of the Republican caucus.
SB 496 would add protections to the state Human Rights Act, prohibiting race-based discrimination for hair textures and protective hairstyles associated with the history and culture of particular races, including styles such as braids, locks, and twists.
The bill — known as the CROWN Act — came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday in a 10-7 vote.
The Senate received a message Friday morning from the Senate Judiciary Committee recommending SB 496 for passage and the bill was read a first time. But a motion was made to refer the bill to the Senate Finance Committee, causing a debate over whether the bill has a fiscal cost to the state or not.
“This bill that came out of Judiciary has fiscal implications potentially from several departments,” claimed Senate Finance Committee Chairman Eric Tarr, R-Putnam.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Trump, R-Morgan, is the lead sponsor of a bill similar to SB 496. He quizzed Tarr about what evidence he had that the bill would have a potential cost to taxpayers.
“It is unnecessary for this bill to go to finance,” Trump said. “It’s already against the law in this state to discriminate on the basis of race. This bill simply clarifies that if you discriminate against someone because of his or her hairstyle associated with his or her race, it qualifies as racial discrimination. … It will reduce the number of cases that have to be litigated because it will resolve that legal issue. It will require fewer cases, not more, if we pass this bill.”
Tarr said that the bill could have implications for the West Virginia Board of Risk and Insurance Management, the state’s liability insurance provider. Tarr said the Crown Act could open the state to potential lawsuits that BRIM would be required to pay.
“Part of the implications on that is the ability to go back historically on cases and then bring those suits,” Tarr said. “The other is that the Human Rights Commission is likely going to have to take up more cases. So I would imagine that they may have to add staff or have more administrative costs that’s going to be associated with it as well. And the Attorney General has questions with it, so I’m going to send it up to him.”
State Sen. Mike Caputo, D-Marion, is the lead sponsor of SB 496. He disagreed with Tarr’s concerns about potential costs to the state.
“I don’t know what the motive is for moving this bill to finance this late in the session, but I can certainly anticipate what the motive is,” Caputo said. “This bill is very important to people. We need to move this bill along.”
Later in the Senate floor session Friday, the Senate passed Senate Bill 562 — expanding employment and training requirements necessary for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits — in a 32-2 vote, sending the bill to the House of Delegates.
The bill creates a three-year phase-in for the new work and employment requirements and increases the age of adults with no dependents in SNAP from 52 to 59, with as many as 8,000 West Virginians potentially affected by the legislation. However, when Caputo asked Senate Workforce Committee Chairman Rollan Roberts, R-Raleigh, about the bill’s fiscal implications, he said he wasn’t sure.
“There has been a fiscal note requested. It has not been returned at this point,” Roberts said. “I’ve consulted the finance chair on this and he believes that this will be revenue positive.”
Caputo made a motion to refer SB 562 to the Senate Finance Committee until a fiscal note could be obtained detailing the potential cost of the bill. The motion failed 2-32.
“I can’t believe what I’m hearing,” Caputo said. “Quite frankly, that was a very, very good explanation of why one bill maybe should be looked at in finance and maybe the other one shouldn’t be … I was just trying to make a point that when there’s financial impact, the bill should be sent to finance and have a fiscal note.”
