I’ll be listing in on, and tweeting about today’s session of WV Senate Judiciary. On the agenda (attached) is a bill dealing with DNA maintained for law enforcement and a bill dealing with selecting delegates for an Article V convention. #Folkreporter @BlackByGodWV 
The two bills: DNA bill (S.B. 53)
If I understand correctly, the bill would require people being arrested provide a DNA sample upon arrest for certain crimes, as opposed to after conviction.
wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML…
If I understand correctly, the bill would require people being arrested provide a DNA sample upon arrest for certain crimes, as opposed to after conviction.
wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML…
@lauraforwv proposed an amendment to S.B. 53 to prevent DNA samples to be added into any database until after a criminal conviction, meaning DNA would be collected on arrest, but not added to databases until there is a conviction.
@RyanWeld opposes the amendment, saying that the type DNA collection in the bill is not an unreasonable search (@lauraforwv raised concern that it was), and echoing concerns of @MikeStuartWV that there is too long of a period between arrest and trial to risk not entering
the DNA to see if there is a match to other serious crimes. Sen. Weld and Sen. Stuart argue that more victims could be created by not entering the DNA into a database prior to conviction.
Witness arguing for S.B. 53 now speaking (I didn’t get her name or organization).
Witness argues that this bill will help solve unsolved crimes where DNA was collected from crime scenes, but had no match (her assaulter was found when arrested for an unrelated crime and his DNA matched that left at the crime scene).
@lauraforwv closes debate on her amendment. She argues that the bill as is “tramples on the 4th amendment”, that this is not consistent with an arrestees presumption of innocence.
The amendment is rejected (voice vote).
The committee agreed on language for the bill, and will be reported to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass, but will first be referred to the committee on finance.
This bill deals with an Article V convention, an alternate way to propose constitutional amendments. The bill would prohibit WV delegates to a convention from participating in a convention where vote is taken by delegate (requires vote by state). Also limits delegates
from voting on an “unauthorized amendment” (not in the Article V application), by including an oath that says they will not vote on an unauthorized amendment. Violating the oath carries with it a fine of $100,000 to $500,000 and at least ten years imprisonment.
Sen. Stover says he will vote for the bill, asks if we have any control over our delegates. Legal council says that the bill has a recall provision, and that the oath allows the state to punish delegates. Council acknowledges the many legal uncertainties.
@MikeStuartWV notes that the penalties set out in the bill are “excessive”.
@SenatorKarnes, the bills lead (and only?) sponsor is now speaking.
@SenatorKarnes says this bill was inspired by faithless elector laws/ SCOTUS cases. States can compel presidential electors to vote a certain way, Sen. Karnes believes the same can be done for delegates to an Article V convention. Sen. Stover seems to disagree, saying that the
Delegates were independent when the constitutional convention of 1787 was held. Sen. Stover (who is still a yes) argues that the power of a constitutional convention’s is likely unlimited.
S.B. 115 is reported to the full senate with the recommendation that it do pass.
No one asked about/ commented on the requirement that the convention vote by state (one state, one vote) for WV’s delegates to participate.
Listening*, not listing
The witness’s name is Ashley Spence, founder of the DNA Justice Project.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
