Another attempt by Senator Marise James to pass legislation permitting government employees to seek political office while employed by the Government of the Virgin Islands (GVI) has stalled. The motion to move the bill forward during Thursday’s meeting of the Committee on Rules and Judiciary failed as her colleagues did not second it.

Proponents argue that the defeat of this legislation maintains a significant barrier for government employees wishing to enter politics. Currently, they must take unpaid leave to run for office, leading to financial and professional instability. This requirement discourages many potential candidates, thereby limiting competition and benefiting incumbent lawmakers who face less competition.

Bill 35-0032, introduced last September, would allow employees to seek office while employed unless prohibited by federal or other laws. The bill faced substantial opposition from lawmakers, including Senators Kenneth Gittens and Carla Joseph, over concerns about conflicts of interest, misuse of taxpayer dollars, and potential policy violations.

Amendments were recommended, including changes by Elections Supervisor Caroline Fawkes and Chief Justice Rhys Hodge. The chief justice advised excluding judicial branch employees from the bill, citing strict guidelines on their political activity. Although Senator James complied with this request and considered other amendments, the latest version of the bill was not shared with invited testifiers nor posted on the Legislature’s website as of press time.

Senator James argued that requiring government employees to vacate their posts to run for office is unfair and disrupts government operations, especially during election cycles. She suggested that her proposal would increase the pool of candidates and reduce the financial burden of campaigning.

While invited testifiers generally supported the amended measure, they suggested further refinements. Ms. Fawkes recommended changing the start of mandatory leave for government employees contesting political office to the absentee ballot casting date rather than the first day of early voting, as the latter is flexible and varies each election cycle.

Despite some support, the bill faced overwhelming opposition from lawmakers. Senator Angel Bolques Jr. expressed concerns about potential issues and ambiguities, while Senator Franklin Johnson worried about conflicts of interest between official duties and political ambitions. Senator Kenneth Gittens reiterated his skepticism, fearing that the bill might encourage misuse of government resources.

The motion to advance the proposal out of committee did not receive a second, leaving Senator James “speechless.” Despite this setback, she emphasized the need to avoid the financial hardship associated with campaigning and expressed hope that future efforts might succeed in changing the law.

Bill 35-0032 remains in the Committee on Rules and Judiciary at the chair’s call.

The Senate Committee on Rules & Judiciary has advanced a proposal aimed at increasing compensation for jurors and witnesses in the Virgin Islands. Currently, jurors receive $50 per day under federal law, while witnesses receive $40. Local statutes, dating back to 1957, offer witnesses only $4 to $8 per day, and local courts established in 1976 pay jurors $40 per day, plus $5 for transportation costs.

Bill 35-0121 proposes increasing these rates to $80 per day for jurors, payable in $40 half-day increments. Jurors who participate in selection but are not chosen will receive $20 per day, a point of contention for Senator Marise James, who argues for equal compensation for all jurors. Additionally, the bill includes provisions for reasonable compensation for travel, parking, and a subsistence allowance for meals and lodging.

Government employees are excluded from these payments. Witnesses would also receive $80 per day for court attendance, plus a $100 allowance for subsistence, travel time, and inter-island travel costs if they live outside the district where the court proceedings are held.

Senator Novelle Francis, co-sponsor of the bill, emphasized the financial burden jury service imposes on citizens, which can hinder the ability to form a diverse jury. Chief Territorial Public Defender Julie Todman supported the measure, stating that adequate juror compensation is crucial for maintaining a robust judicial system. She highlighted the American Bar Association’s stance that juror compensation should cover routine expenses such as travel, parking, meals, and childcare. This measure, she noted, would elevate the Virgin Islands from one of the lowest to one of the highest in juror compensation.

Deputy Attorney General Ian Clement voiced support for the bill but pointed out that the proposed legislation lacks clarity on who will fund the increased payments and suggested that local government employees should not receive payments when testifying on behalf of the government. He also questioned the exclusion of federal employees from these payments.

Regina Peterson, Administrator of Courts for the Judiciary of the Virgin Islands, proposed that the new pay rate should be a minimum threshold, allowing adjustments for inflation and cost of living. She also noted the projected doubling of jury service costs to approximately half a million dollars annually, to be included in the judiciary’s upcoming budget submission. Ms. Peterson clarified that while the judiciary handles jury compensation, witness payments are the responsibility of the party calling the witness.

Jessica McKinney, chair of the Legislation and Law Reform Committee of the Virgin Islands Bar Association, recommended aligning the juror payments with the current minimum wage, raising the base to $84 per day to maintain consistency. She suggested further adjustments to enhance the bill’s flexibility.

Despite calls for language amendments, Bill 35-0121 passed unanimously in committee, with further discussions expected to refine and strengthen the legislation.

A recent legislative effort to transition the appointment of the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General to an elected position was halted in the Senate on Tuesday. Spearheaded by Senator Alma Francis Heyliger, the proposed Bill 35-0248 sought to prompt the U.S. Congress to amend the Revised Organic Act, allowing the Attorney General to be elected directly by the populace.

This initiative rekindled a debate that began with a 1998 opinion poll indicating strong voter support for electing the Attorney General. The push for this change gains context from the recent terminations of former Attorneys General Denise George and Ariel Smith, followed by the appointment of Gordon Rhea by Governor Albert Bryan, with Ian Clement currently serving as acting Attorney General.

During a Committee on Homeland Security, Justice, and Public Safety session, Acting Attorney General Ian Clement outlined potential benefits and risks of the proposed electoral process. He highlighted the conflict of interest that could emerge if candidates for the territory’s chief legal position were to engage in fundraising activities.

Contrarily, Julie Smith-Todman, Chief Territorial Public Defender, maintained a neutral stance but expressed concerns about the possible undue influence of campaign contributions on candidates. She feared such influences might compel candidates to adopt excessively stringent measures to gain public approval.

Local attorney Russell Pate, a supporter of the bill, argued that the Attorney General should represent the people rather than the executive branch, adding to the voices calling for legislative enhancements to improve the bill.

The bill faced opposition from several senators, including Kenneth Gittens who expressed concerns about the potential for further politicization of the office and the loss of legislative oversight over the Department of Justice. Senator Franklin Johnson also voiced hesitations about the influence of political donors on an elected Attorney General.

While Senator Ray Fonseca initially leaned towards supporting the bill, he eventually abstained from the vote, influenced by his peers’ reservations.

Senator Francis Heyliger defended the bill passionately, countering arguments against politicization by stating the inherent political nature of the office and questioning the dismissal of the electorate’s ability to choose their representatives effectively.

Ultimately, the proposal was defeated, with only Senators Francis Heyliger and Dwayne DeGraff voting in favor. This decision comes over two decades after a significant portion of USVI voters expressed their desire to elect their Attorney General, leaving the issue unresolved.