I try not to write angry. As I’ve said before, this column is not just a place for me to spew an opinion. I really do try to use this space to take you behind-the-scenes into how I choose the stories I cover, analysis of the political actions of others, and tidbits of items I can’t fit into stories.

But after bearing witness to the actions of the West Virginia Senate on the last night of the 2025 legislative session, I was pretty flabbergasted. I had already turned in last week’s column Saturday afternoon and had considered having my editors toss that in order to write a new column, but that would have involved me writing angry, and that’s just not a good idea.

The last major piece of legislation at the end of that night on April 12 was Senate Bill 474, ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in state government, K-12 education, and higher education.

I’m not going to get into whether this is a good or bad bill. As I’ve said before, DEI is a largely meaningless term now; something that means something different depending on your political leanings. Beyond higher education, it is still unclear to me how much of a problem DEI is in a state with a conservative electorate that has elected Republicans who run nearly every aspect of state government.

Regardless of your opinion on DEI, everyone should be concerned with how the state Senate got SB 474 over the finish line with less than 10 minutes to spare before the midnight deadline on April 12.

If you want a play-by-play on how Saturday night went down, may I direct you to my story Friday on a letter co-written by the two-member Senate Democratic caucus to Senate leadership and Gov. Patrick Morrisey raising concerns about whether SB 474 is a valid legally passed piece of legislation.

Here is some other background to consider: SB 474 was introduced on behalf of Gov. Morrisey – who already had an executive order in place banning DEI policies – on Feb. 14. That was two days after the start of the 60-day legislative session. The bill wasn’t taken up by a Senate Committee until 26 days later on March 11 – nearly halfway through the session.

It took another 16 days for the bill to be reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee before it was finally passed by the Senate on March 26. It took another 19 days until the bill made it through two House committees and to third reading on April 11 – one day before the session ended.

The bill was not considered in the House until the evening on April 12. A motion was made to limit debate on all amendments to one hour. Only explanations of an amendment by the lead sponsor and the rebuttal were not limited to the hour time limit, so debate on 22 amendments (19 of which were rejected) lasted for more than two hours. That’s not counting the passionate floor speeches against the bill itself made by the only three Black members of the House, all Democratic delegates.

The Senate didn’t take up the House message on SB 474 until 11:14 p.m. with just 45 minutes to the midnight deadline. There were another 15 amendments in the system offered by one of the Senate’s only two Democratic members, Marion County state Sen. Joey Garcia. The Senate was about to consider a motion to concur with the House’s amendments to SB 474, but that motion was pulled after several Republican senators huddled with Senate President Randy Smith, R-Preston, at the podium.

Insert various parliamentary shenanigans here, but the Senate finally passed SB 474 in a 31-2 party line vote – eight minutes shy of the April 12 midnight deadline ending the 60-day legislative session.

Both Senate Minority Leader Mike Woelfel and Garcia allege that the Senate Republican supermajority made several questionable moves: They tried to suspend a joint rule between the House and Senate in an attempt to get around considering Garcia’s amendments, a move that required a two-thirds roll call vote of both the House and the Senate.

If the Senate had asked the House to follow suit, it is unclear. And the Senate adopted that motion on a voice vote, not a roll call vote. A few minutes later the Senate had to walk that motion back, but that leads to the other problem Woelfel and Garcia raise: The Senate missed several steps in walking back that motion.

The third issue was based on the joint rule the Senate attempted to sidestep, they were required to consider Garcia’s amendments before moving to concur and pass SB 474. Instead, a motion was made to end debate in order to concur and pass when instead, the Senate should have considered each amendment. That would have required motions to end debate on each of the 15 amendments, but it could have been done easily.

And I’m going to bring up a fourth issue that could render SB 474 unlawfully passed if it ever gets to a court. Neither body amended the title of the bill to update it consistent with the changes made to the bill. The following is from the Legislature’s own bill drafting manual:

“The title of a bill is a constitutional requirement and it should be carefully drafted…In addition, the contents and structure of the title of a legislative bill is of critical importance. The sufficiency of a bill title can become a key issue in the validity of a bill and there have been several decisions of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals concerning this issue.”

House Minority Whip Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, raised the issue about SB 474’s title after the bill passed the House the night of April 12, but the point of order was largely shrugged off. Quite frankly, all of these actions combined could put the legality of SB 474 in question if someone were to challenge the new law in court.

As someone who loves the legislative process, both as a reporter and as a former Senate staff member, I was flummoxed by how the Senate Republican supermajority handled themselves all session long both on the floor and in committee meetings. But the actions by the Senate on the night of April 12 was the coda.

And I guess if SB 474 was some major piece of legislation, I might understand the urgency, though can you call a bill that took 58 days to complete the legislative process urgent? But a bill that was merely the codification of an active executive order that may not even be a substantial problem in conservative West Virginia? I just don’t think the bill was worth that much effort. It certainly wasn’t worth the legal headache that is likely to come.

(Adams is the state government reporter for Ogden Newspapers. He can be contacted at sadams@newsandsentinel.com)