CHARLESTON —  Acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is calling lawmakers back to their Capitol desks Thursday, possibly opening the door for Republicans to make a final pitch for 100 single-member districts in the House of Delegates.

Word went out to all 100 delegates Friday that Tomblin had settled on a date to launch a second special session, this one called to repair some “technical flaws” in a House bill that put some precincts in Morgan and Kanawha counties in two districts, effectively handing a few thousand voters double representation.

Can the GOP legally use the session as another launching pad for 100 single-member districts, or does Tomblin’s call limit lawmakers to correcting the missteps in the bill that passed Aug. 5?

No one has seen the call yet, but Republican leaders already are loading their arsenal for another battle.

House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, is convinced the House can start from square one, since the first bill, which Tomblin vetoed, is, in effect, dead in the water and no longer exists.

“I don’t think we have a live bill in front of us now,” Armstead said in a Friday interview.

“Had we still been in session, he could have vetoed the bill, and it could have been back in front of us, and we could act on any amendments to it and send it back to him. We can’t do that now because we’ve already adjourned.”

No mistakes were uncovered in the Senate bill on redistricting, narrowing the problems of redrawing the lines across West Virginia’s political landscape to the House, based on population shifts evident in the 2010 census figures.

“I think this provides us with an additional opportunity for us to do what I think is the right thing and what I think most people in West Virginia believe is the right thing,” Armstead said of the concept of 100 single-member districts.

Under the fatally flawed House bill, the number of single-member districts increased from 36 to 47. In all, that plan called for a total of 67 districts.

Some districts spelled out in the House bill contained five members, and two others would have four apiece. There was considerable angst over the makeup of some, especially in the 27th, where Raleigh was sliced up so that voter-shy counties of Boone, Logan, Fayette and Wyoming would borrow residents to make up for population losses.

In addition, the plan called for Summers to be removed from the 27th and become a separate district, with some help from Monroe County, where sentiment is running high against the plan, since Monroe is carved up three ways, in effect losing its identity.

Armstead prefers that the House meet briefly, distribute copies of the proposed new plan, then recess and come back, perhaps in September to dovetail a special session with interims as a cost-saving move, and take up the plan after giving constituents a chance to provide input.

“I think this would help us do the right thing,” the minority leader said.

“That’s the better route to take. I think it would restore confidence among the people of West Virginia in the process.”

No matter what the game plan is, Republicans are gearing up for another floor fight on behalf of single-member districts — a plan that fizzled in a showdown a week ago. When the votes were counted, all 35 Republicans voted for the idea, along with only four Democrats.

Armstead suggested he isn’t dismayed by the lopsided result.

“I truly believe after we finished the session, people have gone home and talked with their constituents,” he said.

“I would hope we would have more support for it. I strongly believe the people of West Virginia fully support 100 single-member districts.”

Majority Leader Brent Boggs, D-Braxton, said earlier he feels the mistakes in the original bill can be remedied, indicating he doesn’t share Armstead’s belief that the House will be starting from square one with a major overhaul in mind.

“The legislative process contains checks and balances so that when an error is discovered, we can promptly call attention to it and take the initiative to get it fixed,” he said.

“Developing this redistricting bill took painstaking work by members and staff, and I am proud of the plan as a whole. Unfortunately, amending what we had hoped to be the final product proved problematic.”

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com