I oppose House Bill 4041 not only as a West Virginian, but as someone who has lived the consequences of punitive, inflexible responses to crisis.

My brother was autistic, developmentally delayed, and schizoaffective. During a mental health crisis, he had what can only be described as a toddler-sized meltdown in a grown man’s body. We did what families are told to do; we sought law enforcement assistance because we needed help.

In that crisis, my brother bit an officer. For that, he spent eight months in jail.

He did not understand why he was there. He believed he was in jail because he hadn’t taken the trash out. That is how disconnected he was from reality. Jail did not stabilize him. It did not treat him. It did not protect him or the public. It isolated him, traumatized him, and severed him from his family.

When he was eventually released, there was no coordinated reentry, no meaningful support, and no contact with us.

He was later murdered.

I share this because HB 4041 would make outcomes like this more likely, not less. Mandatory sentencing strips away discretion in moments where discernment matters most, especially in encounters involving disability, mental illness, or crisis. A mandatory 25-year sentence for assault leaves no room to distinguish between malicious intent and a medical or psychiatric emergency.

Violence against law enforcement is serious. Officers deserve safety and support. But punishment without proportionality, treatment, or context does not create safety, it creates tragedy.

West Virginians value fairness, restraint, and accountability. We believe in protecting both public servants and vulnerable people. Laws that respond to crisis with only punishment fail everyone involved.

I urge lawmakers to oppose HB 4041 and instead invest in policies that prioritize de-escalation, mental health response, judicial discretion, and true public safety so no other family has to learn, the hardest way possible, what happens when compassion is removed from the system.

1. Local control is something that has been advocated for by both republicans and democrats serving in the legislature. City government is the epitome of local control, and if the people of a city desire these measures they can advocate for change at the local level. We do not need the state interfering in processes which we find satisfactory and functional at the local level.
2. Partisanship has become so severe in this country that it has led to an almost insurmountable divide both politically and socially. Local elections should be about finding the best leaders who can address local problems. These are frequently far different than the partisan issues that we hear about nationally. I predict that injecting partisanship at the local level will only serve to divide our communities and leave us less capable of solving the problems that impact us the most.

Why are you trying to dictate if municipalities can have non-partisan elections for mayor and city council.  That should be up to the people that live there.  We have enough division in tvhis state and country because of parties.  Let's not take it to the local level too.

Is it not bad enough that we live in a partisan nation already??? WE DON'T WANT YOUR "US VS THEM" RHETORIC IN OUR TOWNS. You're going to do it anyway. Who cares how many of us poor people die when a civil war breaks out because the trash in office right? We're just the peasants.

Public Comment in Opposition to HB 4080

To the Members of the West Virginia House of Delegates:

I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 4080, which would mandate partisan elections for all municipal offices in West Virginia.

Local municipalities, including cities and towns, are best positioned to determine what electoral system serves their communities. Municipal elections should remain under local control, allowing each community to decide whether partisan or non-partisan elections work best for selecting their mayors and city council members. The state legislature should not interfere with local elections, which are best managed at the local level where they serve.

Municipal governance is fundamentally different from state or federal government. Mayors and city council members deal with practical, non-ideological issues like water systems, sewage infrastructure, road maintenance, zoning decisions, and local budgets. These are community concerns that transcend party politics. Forcing partisan labels onto these local offices would inject unnecessary division into communities and shift the focus away from competence, experience, and commitment to local problem-solving.

Additionally, HB 4080 would impose significant burdens on municipalities. Many would be forced to amend their charters, a complex process that may require special elections or ballot measures. If voters choose to maintain non-partisan elections but the charter cannot be successfully amended, municipalities could find themselves in violation of state code through no fault of their own.

West Virginia should trust local communities to govern themselves. I urge you to vote NO on HB 4080 and preserve local control over municipal elections.

Respectfully submitted,

Renee K. Nicholson

Morgantown, West Virginia

1. This bill is terrible for WV and local communities. Do not continue with this bill!

I am a constituent in Beckley, Raleigh County, and I support HB 4095.

I do not support no-knock warrants in any capacity. To be clear, however, I know this legislative body will never agree with that, and this might be as good as it gets. When law enforcement enters a home without warning, the risk of confusion, injury, and death rises sharply for everyone involved, including residents and officers. No-knock tactics undermine public trust.

HB 4095 is an important step toward accountability by limiting qualified immunity when officers serving no-knock warrants use clearly excessive force, knowingly violate the law, or act in plainly incompetent, reckless, or negligent ways that cause injury, death, or psychological trauma.

I also support the bill's requirement that courts review not only the officer’s actions but also the agency’s training, mentoring, and procedures, and that the agency be held responsible if it failed to adequately prepare officers. That matters because harm does not come only from “one bad decision” in the moment. It can also come from systems that tolerate poor training, good-old-boy networks, weak oversight, and a culture of impunity.

West Virginians deserve safety without fear. When force is excessive or conduct is reckless or negligent, the system should have meaningful recourse, and government actors should not be shielded from accountability. HB 4095 moves us closer to public safety rooted in restraint, transparency, and responsibility.

Please support HB 4095.

I am writing to express my strong objection to HB 4106, which would allow 18–20-year-olds to carry a concealed firearm without a license. While I respect the rights of adults, this bill ignores well-documented scientific research showing that the prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for reasoning, impulse control, and long-term planning—continues developing well into the mid-20s.

Young adults in this age range, particularly males, are more prone to emotional volatility and risk-taking behaviors. Removing licensing and training requirements places these individuals and their communities at increased risk of accidents, violence, and tragedy.

Laws regulating firearms exist for a reason: to ensure that those carrying weapons have adequate training, judgment, and accountability. Expanding concealed carry to an age group still undergoing critical brain development is not rooted in science or public safety—it is ideology over evidence.

I urge legislators to vote against HB 4106 and protect both young adults and the broader public from unnecessary risk.

I completely disagree with this bill. I believe everyone should have a permit if they own or have a gun. If they are not trained to use a gun, then that is a safety hazard; someone could get hurt, or someone could abuse this, and they could commit serious crimes.

OPPOSITION Response to HB 4135

To allow police access to all photo information upon arrest for sex offenders.

January 14, 2026

1. The proposed updates to West Virginia Registry §15-12-2 (d)(8) remove the requirement to provide “screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the internet and add the requirement to provide:
   • Any “online identifier” used by the registrant, which includes:
     • Any email address information, instant message, or chat information;
     • A social networking platform account name or identifier;
     • Any identifier used for communicating on a mobile application or internet website;
     • A mobile telephone number;
     • Any mobile device identification information; and
     • Any other similar internet communication name.

2. First, neither screen names, user names, aliases, nor IP addresses are included in the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” schema; as such, if the bill’s purpose is to be taken seriously, then §15-12-2. (d)(8) should be struck, NOT expanded. Moreover, recent federal case law has concluded that collecting internet identifiers from registrants violates the First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
3. Second, while “email address,” “instant message,” or “chat” may not need further elaboration, the statute does not define nor limit the scope of “social networking platform,” “mobile device identification,” or “other similar internet communication name” information.” Does this include usernames and passwords? What about information for commercial transactions or pure political speech?
4. Third, the law does not specify what local law enforcement or other government officials can do with the identifier information they receive. Under what circumstances, if any, can they disseminate it to the public? What about for internal use? Can the state peruse identifier information at its leisure or only to investigate a specific type of crime?
5. Fourth, how can requiring individuals to disclose their identifier information within three days of an update be seen as anything other than highly onerous and deeply burdening protected speech?

1. The existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) Internet-identifier reporting requirements do not withstand intermediate scrutiny.
   • The statute chills a wide swath of speech activity—regardless of whether such activity could further the commission of a sex crime.
   • The statute has not defined whether or how law enforcement uses internet identifiers to protect the public against the commission of sex crimes.
   • The statute has not defined how the information may or may not be released to the public or how the public could effectively use it to protect themselves.
   • Finally, the current statute and proposed updates (collectively, internet reporting requirements) have not been shown by other states and jurisdictions to serve any government interest, much less a significant interest. (Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209—Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024), 2024)

1. The constitutional problems with the existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) internet-identifier reporting requirements are both readily apparent and significant.
   • Collecting internet identifiers from registrants chills a wide swath of speech activity—regardless of whether such activity could further the commission of a sex crime and violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
   • Collecting internet identifiers from registrants does not meet the intermediate scrutiny standard. Other states and jurisdictions have not shown that it serves any government interest, much less a significant one. (Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209—Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024), 2024)
   • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.” (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences. Specific examples of the punitive nature of this bill are:
     • Piling on onerous restrictions retroactively that are not supported in research or empirical evidence (Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 39 A.3d 200, 209 N.J. 595 2012); and
     • Providing for a felony penalty for non-compliance.
   • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan’s SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Doe v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 3d 672 E.D. Mich. 2015).
   • The existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) Internet-identifier reporting requirements are overbroad.
     • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.”(FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
     • HB 4135 applies to “All registrants,” not just those whose offense involved or had an internet component.
2. The constitutional problems with the proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) “The registrant shall permit inspection of his or her mobile device to verify all identifiers for mobile applications used by the registrant are provided.” is also both readily apparent and significant.
   • Requiring all registrants, regardless of parole, probation, or supervised status, is overbroad.
     • • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
       • HB 4135 applies to “all registrants,” not just those on parole, probation, or under supervision.
   • Requiring registrants performing their civil regulatory reporting duties under §15-12-2 who are not on parole, probation, or supervision to submit to a search and seizure of their person and effects represents an unreasonable search and seizure. It clearly violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Library of Congress, n.d.)and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.)

Works Cited

Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California (2014), the police generally cannot search the contents of a cell phone seized during a traffic stop or arrest without a warrant, even if the person is a registered sex offender. This would also apply to a sex offender who is visiting the state police to update the registry. There could be exceptions for persons who are on probation or parole, but as for sex offenders who are not, they are still covered under the Fourth Amendment. For these reasons, HB-4135 is clearly unconstitutional and should be rejected.

"The registrant shall permit inspection of his or her mobile device to verify all identifiers for mobile applications used by the registrant are provided."

I don’t pretend to understand every aspect of gender identity, but I do understand what happens when politics turns people into symbols instead of neighbors.

HB4143 doesn’t address an urgent problem facing West Virginia. Instead, it sets rigid definitions that would affect many areas of law and policy, with long-term consequences that are difficult to undo. Laws like this don’t reduce conflict. They escalate it, while placing real families and children in the middle.

I ask the Legislature to focus on policies that improve safety, health, and opportunity for all West Virginians, rather than advancing legislation that feels designed to win a political argument rather than solve a real problem.

• ~30,090 West Virginians if using 1.7%, or
• ~319 West Virginians if using 0.018%.  

• endocrine care (hormone management for congenital conditions),
• appropriate screening (e.g., anatomy-based cancer screening),
• specialist referrals and coding.

• U.S. Constitution — 14th Amendment (Due Process & Equal Protection): when a law burdens a class of people (including those with congenital sex traits) and interferes with personal medical decision-making, it triggers major equal protection and liberty concerns.
• West Virginia Constitution — Article III (Due Process / inherent rights): West Virginia’s Bill of Rights includes protections for liberty and due process that courts treat as containing equal-protection principles.  

We need to protect our women. From the entering of their bathrooms, sports, or other places by males. This is not discrimination. This is done in protection of our women. Are we willing to take the risk just because a transgender woman doesn’t want to use the bathrooms that align with her biological sex? I’m sure women wouldn’t we comfortable with a man being in their bathrooms or in the bathroom with their child. Not all transgender individuals are criminals, just as not all cisgender individuals are criminals. Does that mean we should allow men in women’s bathrooms because they feel like they align with it more? This bill would be a good addition to this state.

I oppose HB 4143, the so‑called “Women’s Bill of Rights.” As a woman and a voter, I see this bill not as a protection, but as a weaponization of my identity to target transgender and nonbinary people and to narrow who “counts” as a woman in West Virginia.

West Virginia is struggling with serious problems: poor educational outcomes, high burdens of chronic disease, and persistent economic hardship for families. Yet another culture war bill just wasted legislative time and taxpayer money rather than solving these real crises. It's actually an insult to the women this bill claims to honor. We deserve policies that expand our rights and opportunities, not bills that erase our neighbors and divide our communities.

If the WV legislature is serious about the issues that affect women on a daily basis, how about addressing equal pay, improving maternal health care, protecting women from violence, or improving women's economic security? That would give women real rights and dignity!

I urge you to reject HB 4143 and commit to legislation that materially improves the lives of all women and gender‑diverse people in our state.

Maybe legalizing it would help with the opioid addiction issues we are facing everyday. I know it would also come with it's own set of problems.  I feel the benefits would outweigh the risks.

(3) A verified certificate of mental health examination by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist physician, psychologist, licensed professional counselor practicing in compliance with §30-31-1 et seq. of this code, licensed independent clinical social worker practicing in compliance with the provisions of §30-30-1 et seq. of this code, an advanced nurse practitioner with psychiatric certification practicing in compliance with §30-7-1 et seq. of this code, or a physician assistant practicing in compliance with §30-3E-1 et seq. of this code

*foot doctor (typically)

• Ethics complaints are not dismissed based on the complainant’s district,
• Civil-rights concerns receive full review regardless of geographic boundaries, and
• Citizens are not silenced or excluded from oversight processes due to where they live.

I completely disagree with this bill. No one that is under the law should own a machine gun. What i mean by under the law, if you are not in the military, a police officer, or anyone related with the government. I think everyone in West virginia is crazy and so image them all having machine guns in the streets. Crazy that this bill was even invented.

I am a West Virginia constituent in Beckley, Raleigh County, and I am writing in support of HB 4185. This bill repeals W. Va. Code §61-7-9, removing the section of state code that currently makes it unlawful to possess a machine gun (a fully automatic weapon).

I support the Second Amendment as a practical, meaningful right. I see HB 4185 as a step toward aligning our state law with constitutional principles and restoring rights unnecessarily restricted.

Repealing this corrects what I believe is an overreach by the state and returns lawful adults to the full scope of their 2A rights.

I support HB 4185 because I want West Virginia to affirm that constitutional rights apply in full, not in fragments. Please vote YES on HB 4185

I oppose HB 4185, which repeals West Virginia’s machine gun ban and makes it lawful to possess fully automatic weapons. The right to own firearms does not erase the public’s right to live, work, and learn without constant fear of gun violence. When the state removes basic limits on the most lethal weapons, it minimizes responsible gun ownership while increasing kids, teachers, health workers, and bystanders risk of gun violence.

1. I'm a tax payer, land owner and registered voter. I fully support HB4371. It's time WV! Mountaineers are always free.

Whereas there is more food, fuel, fiber, and medicine in the Cannabis plant than any other plant on Earth, this fact renders it the most beneficial plant on Earth. Find a more beneficial plant.

Whereas we are Free Americans with the Manifest Destiny to work well within the cycles of nature for our prosperity.

Whereas this Nation’s Cannabis Prohibition has proven itself to defy the very essence of Freedom and Liberty of our American Revolution and the Natural Order.

Whereas West Virginia’s legalized Hemp and Medical Cannabis Laws and Rules have proven to be overbearing, cost prohibitive, draconian, and useless.

Whereas West Virginia’s citizens are actively purchasing Recreational Cannabis products in neighboring States, paying those States taxes whose monies, unlike West Virginia, legally utilize those monies for a host of State Programs.

It is with all due respect that I demand Passage of this Bill. While these modest improvements fall short of the Complete Elimination of the Cannabis Prohibition, it is at least offering to save West Virginia untold sums of money from enforcement and will help lead to utilizing this State’s number one cash crop as a proven profitable enterprise. This will in turn lead to spin off industries and a variety of multipliers throughout out State's economy. I also demand the release of all Incarcerated Cannabis Convicts in West Virginia as it makes no sense to imprison citizens for their use of the Most Beneficial Plant on Earth. MAKE IT SO,

• HB 4376 creates a narrow prohibition on familial appointments but does not address the acknowledged limits of ethics oversight.
• Negligence and corruption remain non-actionable unless tied to specific enumerated violations under §6B-2-5.
• The bill does not expand jurisdiction, enforcement tools, or accountability pathways.
• Without broader statutory reform, unethical conduct that does not fit a predefined category will continue to evade oversight.

I’m writing in support of HB 4376. This bill is a simple, needed guardrail: elected officials should not be able to appoint their own family members into state or local offices. West Virginians deserve public service that is earned, transparent, and accountable, not handed down through personal ties.

Even when someone is qualified, nepotism creates a shadow of doubt that harms everyone, including hardworking public employees. Clear rules help protect the integrity of our institutions, reduce conflicts of interest, and rebuild public trust.

I urge you to advance HB 4376 and continue strengthening ethics standards in West Virginia so government works for the public, not for insiders.

Compose

Labels

• Point 1 (Local Impact): For example, this legislation would directly benefit our

• Point 2 (Facts/Data): Reports show that this approach leads to a more strategic and

In opposition to this bill.

OPPOSITION, but CONDITIONAL SUPPORT to HB 4414

Relating to the sex offender registration act

January 16, 2026

1. Removal of the residency restriction, which is NOT supported by the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), nor the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office's SORNA Substantial Implementation Review, State of West Virginia. (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016) To include such a provision would almost certainly lead to costly litigation, which has been decided unfavorably throughout the United States.
2. Removal of all references to the collection of DNA samples for registrants under a civil regulatory schema for registering only, and not related to a criminal conviction in WV.
3. Reclassification of certain offenses, which are currently classified as lifetime (aka AWA' Tier III') but which, according to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II'). This approach will allow limited law enforcement resources to be directed toward more serious offenses.
4. Addition of the 5-year "Clean Record" credit outlined in §115 of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006." (Sensenbrenner, 2006) This approach is consistent with federal law and will remove the less severe offenses from the list.
5. Update by striking the updating to registry change reporting requirements from "within 10 business days" to "within 3 business days," which does not make West Virginia NOT substantially compliant. (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016)
6. Update to §15-12-2 (d) to make the current requirement for the person forced to register of "…provide or cooperate in providing at a minimum…" more understandable, similar to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" §114. (Sensenbrenner, 2006)
7. Addition of exemptions from public display/access on the WV Registry of (a) 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1") category registrants and (b) 'juvenile sex offenders' who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of their offense. Having 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1"), low-risk registrants on the public registry does not enhance public safety, nor does having 'juvenile sex offenders' visible/accessible on the public registry, as well as the moral implications it raises.
8. Updates to several highlighted items in the bill make it void for vagueness and require clarification, etc.

1. Support is conditioned on removing the residency restriction, which is NOT supported by the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) nor a recognized shortfall to substantial compliance according to the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office's SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016).
   • There is also no empirical evidence that the presence or distance restrictions make anyone safer. In fact, they do the opposite.
     • In its decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals not only agreed but went on to declare that adding geographic exclusionary zones, among others, made Michigan's SORNA, post its 2006 and 2011 amendments, punishment and therefore could not be applied retroactively (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Moreover, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geographic exclusionary zones and in-person reporting requirements constitute onerous restrictions unsupported by evolving research and best practices on recidivism, rehabilitation, and community safety. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Additionally, Human Services professionals and nationally recognized experts on sexual abuse and sex offender legislation agree that distance restrictions are counterproductive. According to Gina Puls (Puls, 2016), residency restrictions, which prevent sex offenders from living within an established distance of various places where children gather, have created enormous hardship for released sex offenders as they attempt to reintegrate into society, and the effectiveness of these laws has increasingly been rejected.
   • Establishing presence or distance restrictions expands the use and impact of registry law in West Virginia. It invites litigation if passed, as it shifts the WV registry from a "civil regulatory schema" to a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed." (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
     • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan's SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
2. Support is conditioned on removing all references to DNA sampling from registrants.
   • Adding DNA sampling to §15-12-2 is unnecessary, as WV code §15-2B-6 already codifies the collection of DNA samples upon conviction for registry offenses in West Virginia and those with equivalent offenses accepted from another state under any interstate compact or other reciprocal agreements.
   • Including DNA sampling to §15-12-2 would only impact people moving untethered to West Virginia who must register, i.e., not via a supervised interstate compact agreement or similar agreements—for these people, being forced to provide a DNA sample simply for registering invites litigation if passed as it transitions the WV registry from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and US Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed." (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and US Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
3. Support is conditioned on reclassifying the following offenses, which are classified as lifetime (aka AWA' Tier III') but which, according to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II'):
   • Tier III to Tier II
     • 61-8A-1 et seq, §61-8B-9, §61-8B-11b, §61-8C-1 et seq, §61-8D-5, §61-8D-6, §61-8-12, §61-14-5(b), and §61-14-6(b) when the offense is NOT against a minor who has NOT attained the age of 12 years – these offenses should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II') category when not committed against anyone not a minor who has NOT attained the age of 12.
     • 61-3C-14b and §61-14-6(a) – these offenses should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II') category regardless.
   • Tier I
     • Additionally, §61-8-A-9 (1^st and 2^nd offenses) and §61-8c-3a should be specifically called out as 15 years (aka AWA' Tier I'). Language needs to be added that specifies that all offenses where the sentencing judge made a written finding that the offense was sexually motivated and where the sentence is classified as a misdemeanor should be registerable as 15 years (aka AWA' Tier I').
4. Support is conditioned on the addition of the 5-year "Clean Record" credit outlined in §115 of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides a 5-year "clean record" reduction in registry requirements for Tier 1 (aka WV 15-year registrants) (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and this provision needs to be added to HB 4414 and ultimately to WV §15-12-2. This credit provision must be coded as automatic upon review without the registrant's request or court proceedings.
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides a tier reduction for a "clean record" from Tier III (aka WV lifetime registrants) to Tier II (aka WV 25-year registration) (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and this needs to be added to HB 4414 and ultimately to WV §15-12-2. This credit provision must be coded as automatic upon review without the registrant's request or court proceedings.
5. Support is conditioned on striking the updating to registry change reporting requirements from "within 10 business days" to "within 3 business days."
   • Changing the current registry update requirement from within 10 business days to within 3 business days does not make West Virginia NOT substantially compliant (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016); however, it will cause many more technical registry violations, requiring judicial resources to process, incarcerate, and supervise post-release, and significant associated unnecessary costs.
6. Support is conditioned on updating §15-12-2 (d) to delineate registrant vs State registry items.
   • The current language in §15-12-2 (d) requires the person forced to register to "provide or cooperate in providing" items they do not know of nor have control over. The language must be updated to make it more understandable by delineating between the registrant's and the State's responsibilities, similar to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) §114.
   • 15-12-2 (d) should be updated to delineate the registry requirements that the registrant must provide and those that are the purview of the State, similar to how the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) §114 delineates them.
   • As it stands today, registrants are expected to "provide or cooperate in providing" items not under their purview for which they have no means of providing, e.g.,
     • Date of all arrests;
     • Date of all convictions;
     • Status of parole, probation, or supervised release; and
     • Outstanding arrest warrants, etc.
7. Support is conditioned on the addition of exemptions from public display/access on the WV Registry of (a) 15-year (aka AWA "Tier1") category registrants and (b) juvenile registrants.
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides for optional exemptions of:
     • "Any information about a tier I sex offender convicted of an offense other than a specified offense against a minor," and
     • "Any other information exempted from disclosure by the Attorney General." (Sensenbrenner, 2006)
   • HB4414 needs to add specific language using the optional exemptions above:
     • To provide WV registrants classified as 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1") exemption from display/access on the WV public registry, and
     • To provide WV juvenile registrants, those who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of their offense, with an exemption from display/access on the WV public registry.
8. Support is conditioned on the updates to several highlighted items in the bill, which make it void for vagueness, require clarification, etc.
   • The proposed updates to West Virginia Registry §15-12-2. (d)(8) removes the requirement to provide "screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the internet" and adds the requirement to provide the "Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of any computer or electronic device of the registrant."
     • First, screen names, user names, aliases, and IP addresses are not included in the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" schema; as such, if the bill's purpose is to be taken seriously, then §15-12-2. (d)(8) should be struck. In addition, recent federal case law has concluded that collecting internet identifiers from registrants violates the First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
     • Second, the above requirement to provide IP addresses is not feasible as the standard for IP addresses is that they are dynamic, NOT static (Network Fundamentals - Internet Protocol and IP Addressing | Information Security | University of Houston-Clear Lake, n.d.), and constantly change with the location the device connects to the internet, i.e., coffee shop, work, home, etc. consequently providing an IP address, which changes constantly and frequently, is nonsensical.
     • In addition to 1. a. & 1. b. above, the proposed update and addition of WV §15-12-2-10 (b) include a distance restriction from a "child daycare facility," which is insufficiently defined. It would be difficult for registrants to know with certainty how to comply with this language, given that "daycare" isn't explicitly defined. As written, the clause would not likely survive a "void for vagueness" challenge.
       • The "void-for-vagueness doctrine" requires a statute to be clear enough for those subject to it to understand what conduct would render them liable to its penalties. (Void for Vagueness and the Due Process Clause, n.d.) The standard for determining whether a statute provides fair notice is "whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the statute's] meaning." (Galloway v. State, 781 A.2d 851, 2001)

    I am strongly opposed to HB-4414 because I own my home and have lived in it for almost 13 years. Unfortunately, I am less than 1,000 feet from a playground, so I will be forced to move and find a new home by January 1, 2027.  I get along really well with all my neighbors and have not had any problems since I moved here. I am over 65 and on a fixed income, and where I live is close to my doctor and other places, such as a hospital and grocery stores. HB-4414 to me is a form of punishment in forcing me to either sell my house that is paid off, or keep it and incur the cost and upkeep. I will be forced to try to find a new place to live, which will not be easy due to the residency restrictions, and other reasons such as if I buy a new house, which I really cannot afford to do, will my new neighbors want me in their neighborhood? Or will they try to make living there so difficult for me that I have to move again? As far as renting an apartment goes, good luck finding a decent apartment or anything at all being an RSO, because landlords and property management companies will not rent you an apartment. And if you are lucky enough to find an apartment, it has to be in a non-restrictive area.  What makes things even more difficult for me is that I also have a small dog and a cat that I have had for years. Will I have to get rid of them as well?

   The residency restrictions to me appear to be a punitive measure that is only going to create more homeless registered sex offenders. Applying these restrictions to registered persons retroactively who have lived in the “restricted areas” for years with no problems before the law is passed can be seen as a form of punishment and unconstitutional as found in cases in other states. I was sentenced in Michigan and was deemed a tier 1 offender, which is the lowest risk level, and sentenced to 15 years on the registry. If West Virginia had a tier system like Michigan, I could have petitioned for removal 3 years ago and would be removed by completing my registration sentence in 2 years. West Virginia needs to adopt a 3-tier system and to give people who are tier 1 a way to get off of the registry after 10 years for good behavior. That is why I am in agreement with WVRSOL in their opposition, but conditional support to HB-4414.

As a West Virginian, I care about the safety and stability of my community. HB 4433 would create fear and uncertainty for families who live, work, and contribute here every day.

Punitive, surveillance-based policies don’t solve complex issues. They erode trust and make communities weaker, not stronger.

This bill expands government power in ways that would hurt everyday West Virginians, especially immigrant families and mixed-status households who already live, work, and contribute here.

Policies that lead to over-policing without clear safeguards break trust between people and local institutions. When trust disappears, communities become less safe, not more.

Lawmakers should reject HB 4433 and focus on policies that protect civil liberties, due process, and the well-being of our communities.

I am writing to oppose HB 4433. This bill does not make West Virginia safer. Instead, it weakens trust between communities and local government by turning everyday acts of care into something suspicious or punishable. When people fear that asking for help could lead to arrest, separation from their loved ones, or public humiliation, they stop reporting crimes, stop cooperating with investigations, and avoid public services, and ultimately, that harms everyone.

As a pastor, I have been with families in moments of crisis - when they need medical care, when they are escaping violence, when they are simply trying to get a child to school or get to work. HB 4433 would force communities to choose between compassion and criminal liability, and it would pressure neighbors to treat one another as threats instead of fellow human beings.

I believe West Virginia is stronger when families feel safe showing up for their communities, no matter their immigration status. We are stronger when people can seek help from neighbors without hesitation, seek care without fear, and participate in public life without having to look over their shoulder. This bill does the opposite. It creates fear, isolation, and instability, all of which are conditions that make communities less safe.

Public policy should bring people together rather than push them apart. HB 4433 moves us toward suspicion and separation, rather than toward shared safety and belonging. I urge lawmakers to oppose HB 4433.

I oppose HB 4433 because it raises real- life concerns about due process and constitutional rights of all who live in West Virginia.

It shows concerns about cost and liability for our state and local governments. Expanding enforcement roles usually means higher expenses, more lawsuits, and more risk for taxpayers.

HB 4433 also weakens trust between communities and local government. West Virginia is stronger when families and friends feel safe showing up for their communities, no matter their immigration status. This bill sows fear within West Virginia communities instead of creating safety.

Public policy should bring people together, not push them apart. Your job should be to suggest and pass laws that bring West Virginians together, not separate them further  

There is no need for this bill to be heard in this state’s house. It is a disgusting abuse of power and it should be opposed by all lawmakers in the West Virginia house, on both sides of the aisle.

For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4433.

I oppose HB 4433 because it goes against values many West Virginians share. It goes against our dignity, fairness, and compassion.

Our laws should protect families, respect human rights, and build community trust. This bill does none of those things.

I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4433 and pursue policies that reflect our shared values.

I oppose HB 4433 because it goes against values manv West Virginians share. It goes against our dignity, fairness, and compassion.

Our laws should protect families respect human rights, and build communitv trust. This bill does none of those things.

I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4433 and pursue policies that reflect our shared values.

This bill if passed and enacted would be a clear violation of people’s first amendment rights to practice their religion by meeting people’s basic needs (for food, housing, or transportation), no matter their immigration or citizenship status.

HB 4433 would create significant exposure to criminal liability for not only individual citizens, but also businesses and religious organizations.

This bill would blur what is otherwise a very clear line between criminal smuggling and providing humanitarian assistance  

This bill if passed and enacted would be a clear violation of people’s first amendment rights to practice their religion by meeting people’s basic needs (for food, housing, or transportation), no matter their immigration or citizenship status.

HB 4433 would create significant exposure to criminal liability for not only individual citizens, but also businesses and religious organizations.

This bill would blur what is otherwise a very clear line between criminal smuggling and providing humanitarian assistance.

If passed, HB 4433 would face constitutional challenges in court.

This bill is unnecessary and out of touch with the real issues West Virginians are facing. HB 4433 doesn’t address affordability, healthcare, or community safety and it creates more problems instead.

Lawmakers should focus on real solutions, not policies that divide communities and waste time and resources.  Please oppose HB 4433

Dear sirs/mesdames, Tonight, I re-read the Bill of Rights over and over. You all should, too.  Here is the 14th Amendment, which each of you should all know by heart before you ever ran for politics: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice that it says PERSON in that last sentence. Follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights and quit being inhuman racists.  You may not deny ANY PERSON  regardless of citizenship, religion, race, legal standing, age, gender, sexual preference, political party, education level or any other discriminatory category you care to invent, equal protection under the laws. Stop dividing this state and nation by this persecution of human beings and reject the proposed House law to deny protection and justice to ANY victim of any crime, including sex crimes. Anastasia Hilvers, Registered Republican, although that should not matter.

I don't agree with this bill. This goes against my Christian beliefs that I am my brother's keeper. Human smuggling is not the same as helping a refugee or immigrant get to medical help or feeding them. I understand the difference between letter of the law & spirit of the law. An analogy would be if its illegal to park on the shoulder of a highway. But what if I parked on the shoulder to help a stranded motorist with a flat tire or broken down vehicle. I think the legislation here is going too far with this bill. We need to consider human rights. Intentionally not treating another human with compassion is not only against my Christian values, it strikes me as resoundingly unethical.

I oppose HB 4433 because it goes against values many West Virginians share. It goes against our dignity, fairness, and compassion.

HB 4433 will restrict the ability of faith congregations to assist marginalized people.  Giving transportation and assistance to marginalized people is our responsibility as faith practitioners, regardless of someone's legal status.  Please do not criminalize charitable works.

Lawmakers should reject HB 4433 and uphold the civil liberties of everyone.

I oppose HB 4433 because it raises real concerns about due process and constitutional rights. Expanding enforcement power without strong oversight puts fundamental freedoms at risk.

West Virginians value fairness, accountability, and limits on government overreach. This bill doesn’t align with those values.

Lawmakers should reject HB 4433 and uphold the civil liberties of everyone who calls West Virginia home.

I oppose HB 4433 because it weakens trust between communities and local government. When people are afraid to report crimes, ask for help, or use public services, everyone loses.

West Virginia is stronger when families feel safe showing up for their communities, no matter their immigration status. This bill does the opposite by creating fear instead of safety.

Public policy should bring people together, not push them apart. I urge lawmakers to oppose HB 4433.

This is not what west virginia needs. We need finding for our schools. We need representation that actually listens to what the people if WV tell you they need. This isn't it.

I oppose HB 4433 because it weakens trust between communities and local government. When people are afraid to report crimes, ask for help, or use public services, everyone loses.

West Virginia is stronger when families feel safe showing up for their communities, no matter their immigration status. This bill does the opposite by creating fear instead of safety. Further, reporting these matters is difficult enough. If the real concern is getting violent criminals off the streets, we should make reporting easier for EVERYONE.

Public policy should bring people together, not push them apart. I urge lawmakers to oppose HB 4433.

HB 4433 doesn’t target traffickers, it targets victims and the people who help them. When survivors are blocked from restitution and helpers are criminalized, reporting stops and exploiters thrive, hurting ALL of West Virginia.

Mountaineers are always free, and that means freedom from exploitation, fear, and punishment for surviving abuse. We believe in dignity, accountability, and taking care of our own. This bill contradicts our values of community, fairness, and standing up for one another.

Our state should be a place where survivors are supported, not punished, and where TRAFFICKERS are the ones held responsible. HB 4433 fails that test.

I oppose HB 4433 because it goes against values many West Virginians share. It goes against our dignity, fairness, and compassion.

Our laws should protect families, respect human rights, and build community trust. This bill does none of those things.

I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4433 and pursue policies that reflect our shared values.

HB 4433 raises serious concerns about cost and liability for our state and local governments. Expanding enforcement roles usually means higher expenses, more lawsuits, and more risk for taxpayers.

West Virginia already has real needs like schools, healthcare, infrastructure. We shouldn’t be pouring money into policies that create legal exposure instead of real solutions.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose HB 4433.

I oppose HB 4433 because it raises real concerns about due process and constitutional rights. Expanding enforcement power without strong oversight puts fundamental freedoms at risk.

West Virginians value fairness, accountability, and limits on government overreach. This bill doesn’t align with those values.

Lawmakers should reject HB 4433 and uphold the civil liberties of everyone who calls West Virginia home.

This bill is unwarranted and out of touch with the important issues West Virginians are facing. HB 4433 doesn’t address affordability, healthcare, or community safety and it creates significant problems instead.

Lawmakers need to focus on real solutions, not policies that divide communities and waste time and resources. I strongly oppose HB 4433.

As a West Virginian, I care about the safety and stability of my community. HB 4433 would create fear and uncertainty for families who live, work, and contribute here every day.

Punitive, surveillance based policies don’t solve complex issues. They erode trust and make communities weaker, not stronger.

Please oppose HB 4433 and support solutions that actually bring people together.

I oppose HB 4433 because it weakens trust between communities and local government. When trust breaks down, everyone loses!!!

When people are afraid to report crimes, ask for help, or use public services, communities become less safe, not more. West Virginia is stronger when families feel secure showing up for their neighbors, their schools, and their towns, no matter their immigration status. HB 4433 does the opposite by creating fear and uncertainty where stability is needed.

This bill also raises serious concerns about due process and constitutional rights. Expanding enforcement power without strong oversight puts civil liberties at risk and opens the door to government overreach. West Virginians value fairness, accountability, and clear limits on power, and this bill does not reflect those values.

Punitive, surveillance-based policies do not solve complex issues. They erode trust, push people into the shadows, and make communities weaker rather than stronger. Public policy should bring people together not drive them apart.

HB 4433 goes against values many West Virginians share: dignity, fairness, compassion, and respect for human rights. Our laws should protect families and strengthen community trust. This bill does neither.

I urge lawmakers to oppose HB 4433 and instead support solutions that uphold civil liberties, build trust, and reflect the best of who we are as West Virginians.

I strongly oppose bill 4433. WV has more than it's share of problems to address in legislature, and undocumented immigrants is not high priority. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, make their communities safer and happier. They are less likely to commit crimes than US-born citizens, and that is not debatable. So let's work on that problem instead. Why are so many US-born men violent and aggressive in their communities? If you truly care about the safety and well-being of your constituents, you'll vote NO on this bill, and work on solving the issues actually harming people in WV. If you'd rather blindly obey this authoritarian regime and promote this racist bill, the people will react at the polls. Thank you for your consideration.

I oppose this bill as it threatens constitutional and human rights.

I know that more than likely this will never be read.  The clan that is our legislature worship a pedophile president who has already been charged with numerous crimes and pens bogus drafts of laws such as this to deflect and ignore that.  Stop attacking our neighbors.  Stop acting as if immigrants are not paying taxes when you absolutely know that this is part of WEST Virginia’s economy. Stop acting as if this is something we want.  People cannot live or pay electric bills or childcare and you are focused on being evil instead of  actually helping.   Shame on all of you.  I want for you what you want for every vulnerable member of our state.

All people have God given dignity.  Each person is worthy of respect.  Do not criminalize providing basic human needs.

I believe this new bill goes against what American stands for. Helping people in need (even people who are not American citizens) is something I love about American. I feel like as a country we are moving away from being kind and helpful to those in need. Stop being mean.

• This bill is unnecessary and out of touch with the real issues West Virginians are facing. HB 4433 doesn’t address affordability, healthcare, or community safety and it creates more problems instead.

Anyone who is a victim of human trafficking in this country deserves recourse and justice regardless of citizenship! How cruel to think otherwise.

To the Members of the House Judiciary Committee,

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HB 4433. This bill is a direct attack on vulnerable people and a complete distraction from the real issues our state is facing.

I find it shameful that while we were promised a session focused on jobs and the cost of living, the committee is instead spending time on a bill that protects human traffickers. By blocking undocumented victims from seeking restitution, you are essentially telling traffickers that they can exploit people with zero financial consequences. Restitution isn't a "perk"—it is a basic requirement of justice.

Furthermore, the attempt to criminalize anyone who helps an undocumented person is dangerous. We should be encouraging people to look out for their neighbors, not threatening them with harsh sentences for basic acts of humanity. This kind of fear-mongering doesn't make our communities safer; it just makes them more divided.

Please stop targeting vulnerable people to score political points. I urge you to vote NO on HB 4433 and get back to the work you actually promised to do for our economy and our families.

Get your heads out of your asses. This is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of. How about focusing on protecting children and getting prices of groceries brought down!

HB 4433 raises serious concerns about cost and liability for our state and local governments. Expanding enforcement roles usually means higher expenses, more lawsuits, and more risk for taxpayers.

West Virginia already has real needs like schools, healthcare, infrastructure. We shouldn’t be pouring money into policies that create legal exposure instead of real solutions.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose HB 4433.

I am writing to express my strong objection to HB 4433. While I support efforts to combat human trafficking and protect victims, I find it horrible and dehumanizing that this bill would deny restitution to victims based on immigration status.

Every person, regardless of where they were born or their legal status, is a human being deserving of protection and justice. Using terms like “illegal alien” to determine eligibility for restitution strips individuals of their humanity and punishes them for circumstances beyond their control—often circumstances that traffickers exploit.

Denying restitution to any victim of human trafficking undermines justice, discourages reporting, and places vulnerable people at even greater risk. I urge you to reject this provision and ensure that all victims, without exception, have access to restitution and full legal protection.

The slogan does not say “West Virginians are always free.” The term Mountaineer reflects a people shaped by labor, hardship, and resistance to exploitation. HB 4433 contradicts that legacy by codifying unequal treatment under the law and stripping legal remedies from individuals the statute itself defines as “victims.”

HB 4433 explicitly provides that “if the victim of the offense is an illegal alien then no order to pay restitution shall be made” (§61-14-7(d)(1)).

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that equal protection under Article III, Section 17 prohibits the Legislature from arbitrarily denying legal protections or remedies to similarly situated individuals.

In State ex rel. Harris v. Calendine, the Court reaffirmed that classifications created by statute must bear a real and substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, not merely a political or punitive one. Denying restitution to trafficking victims based solely on immigration status fails this test: it does not advance public safety, deter crime, or protect victims. It does the opposite. Moreover, in Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents, the Court held that laws which impose unequal burdens without adequate justification violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, even when the Legislature claims broad discretion.

HB 4433 creates a two-tier victim system–recognizing victimization for prosecution purposes while denying restitution to certain victims–without a constitutionally sufficient justification.

Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court of Appeals has consistently recognized that statutory remedies are a component of due process, particularly where the state affirmatively recognizes harm. In Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, the Court held that the Legislature may not abolish or materially impair remedies in a manner that is arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.

HB 4433

• Acknowledges individuals as victims under §61-14-1(18);

• Uses their victimization to support criminal prosecutions;

• Then denies restitution as a punitive consequence of immigration status.

This is punishment without adjudication and deprivation without process.

HB 4433 recognizes deportation threats as a form of coercion (§61-14-1(2)(B)). Yet by denying restitution to undocumented victims, the bill institutionalizes the very coercive dynamic it purports to combat.

The Supreme Court of Appeals has emphasized in Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dept. that statutes must be interpreted—and written—in a manner consistent with their stated purpose. A law that deters victims from seeking help and incentivizes traffickers to target undocumented individuals is internally contradictory and legally unsound.

HB 4433 declares that “any individual or entity that transports illegal aliens is engaged in human smuggling” (§61-14-7(b)).

The Court has warned against overbroad criminal statutes that chill lawful conduct and fail to provide clear notice of prohibited behavior. In State v. Flinn, the Court held that laws must be sufficiently definite so that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and so that enforcement is not arbitrary.

This language risks criminalizing

• Humanitarian aid,

• Mutual aid networks,

• Religious or nonprofit assistance,

• Good-faith support unrelated to exploitation.

Such chilling effects are incompatible with due process and fundamental fairness.

While HB 4433 increases penalties for forced labor, debt bondage, and sexual servitude (§§61-14-3 through 61-14-6), denying restitution ensures that undocumented victims remain economically trapped.

In Harrah v. Leverette, the Supreme Court emphasized that constitutional protections apply to persons, not classifications deemed politically convenient. A statute that recognizes harm but withholds remedy perpetuates injustice rather than preventing it.

To summarize the points, House Bill 4433 violates:

• Equal protection under Article III, Section 17;

• Due process under Article III, Section 10;

• Longstanding Supreme Court of Appeals precedent requiring fairness, proportionality, and rational legislative purpose.

It undermines anti-trafficking efforts, invites constitutional challenge, and erodes West Virginia’s moral and legal credibility.

If Mountaineers are always free, then freedom cannot be conditional, selective, or symbolic. For these reasons, I urge the Standing Committee on the Judiciary to reject HB 4433 in its current form. At minimum, all provisions denying restitution or remedies based on immigration status must be removed.

Freedom is not a slogan. It is a constitutional obligation that each of you have a moral and legal obligation to uphold for your constituents. Do the right thing. You're putting your name on it.

“This is a clear violation of people’s first amendment rights to practice their religion by meeting people’s basic needs (for food, housing, or transportation), regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. HB 4433 would create significant exposure to criminal liability for not only individuals, but also businesses, charities, and religious organizations.  HB 4433 if passed would face constitutional challenges in court.”

This is a devastating step in the wrong direction for West Virginians, who not only pride themselves on their sense of community but the right to follow their conscience on issues related to immigrant community members. The use of “illegal alien” is dehumanizing of all individuals who have basic human rights and must have access to due process. When you dehumanize “the other,” you risk the whole of humanity and invite further abuses to one another that violate cultural norms. Truly, this is terrible. Not only is violation of the right to due process unconstitutional for these individuals, but you dare to make citizens complicit in this violation of basic human rights. How will I be protected in the future from legal action for FAILURE to assist in situations involving threat of or active violent harm to immigrant families, as is so widely seen in places like Minneapolis as of January 2026. You have to understand that many simply MORALLY will be unable to comply with this proposed “law.”

I am a Communities In Schools Site Coordinator in public school.   We have many children in our schools, and it is our job to assist our students in overcoming barriers to learning.   Part of that includes coordinating access to basic needs such as food, clothing, community linkages, etc.     To the best of my knowledge, it is not our job to determine the immigration status of parents prior to enrolling their children.  So if we assist a a student’s parent who happens to be illegal, are we going to jail for 10 years?  And if so, by what method will a parent’s immigration status officially be disclosed us?   It is not my area of expertise to review such documentation.    Once a child is enrolled, we are expected to do our job indiscriminately.  This may include providing food, linkages to free charitable resources such as healthcare, etc. Please consider public schools and all human services professionals whose ethical obligation it is to help the people presented to us before voting on this bill. Thank You!

Please VOTE NO on HB 4433, which will be coming up for third reading on the House floor the week of Jan. 26.

I have four main concerns:

First, this law is titled explicitly to fool West Virginians into believing it is something it is not.  This bill, “Prohibiting Human Smuggling and Trafficking,” is really designed to target immigrants.  I have encountered gross misunderstanding of its content directly in conversations with friends and colleagues.

Second, §61-14-1(6):

“Human Smuggling", "smuggling", or "smuggles" means knowingly transporting, transferring, receiving, isolating, enticing, or harboring an illegal alien to avoid enforcement of the laws of this state, another state, or the United States …

This provision says it relates to transporting, transferring, or so-called “harboring an illegal alien.”  When I read this, I immediately concluded this would be the anti-Anne Frank law or the anti-Underground Railroad law for West Virginia.  If the Federal government seeks to utilize inhumane methods to enforce its immigration laws, compassionate West Virginians with integrity may be forced to transport, transfer, or harbor undocumented folks for protection.  No law in our state should present a barrier to such compassion and caring.

Third, immigration law and enforcement is generally not a state matter.  For better or worse, immigration is the responsibility of the U.S. government, and we still live in a federal system that divides power between national and state governments.

Fourth and finally, I am shocked and dismayed to see so many bills in this session’s Legislature designed to target immigrants.  I am further dismayed that HB 4433 uses — in fact, “defines” — the term “illegal alien.”  That terminology is outdated, pejorative, and a disgusting way to refer to human beings, regardless of their immigration status.

Please exercise your compassion and VOTE NO on HB 4433.

Please vote to stop HB 4433.  Human trafficking must be addressed, but this bill is dangerous.  HB4433 would allow bad actors to use our laws to prosecute people of good conscience.

Under HB 4433 those West Virginian's who helped people find freedom through the Underground Railroad could be prosecuted.  Now it is clear that we must not pass bills that can be used against real patriots, like nurses trying to help victims.

Please use your vote to say NO to HB 4433.  Montani Semper Liberi.

House Bill 4433 should not become law.

Let me be clear at the outset. Human trafficking is real. It is evil. It destroys lives. Those who traffic human beings deserve aggressive prosecution, long prison sentences, and the full force of the law. Nothing in opposing this bill weakens that commitment. In fact, this bill weakens it itself.

HB 4433 does not strengthen our fight against human trafficking. It politicizes it.

At its core, this bill introduces a dangerous and unethical idea into West Virginia law: that a victim’s humanity and right to justice depends on their immigration status. The provision denying restitution to trafficking victims labeled as “illegal aliens” is not only morally wrong, it is counterproductive and cruel. No human being is illegal. No victim of exploitation becomes less worthy of justice because of paperwork or status.

This bill tells traffickers something dangerous: exploit undocumented people, because the law will deny those victims restitution and discourage them from speaking up. That is not justice. That is an incentive structure that benefits criminals.

From a legal standpoint, this legislation is largely redundant. Human trafficking, human smuggling, forced labor, and sexual exploitation are already crimes under comprehensive federal law. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. West Virginia does not govern deportation, lawful presence, or immigration status. Pretending otherwise is not governing. It is political theater.

When state legislators attempt to graft federal immigration enforcement onto state criminal law, they invite constitutional challenges, preemption conflicts, and uneven enforcement. Worse, they distract law enforcement from doing what actually stops trafficking: identifying victims, gaining cooperation, dismantling networks, and prosecuting perpetrators.

Ethically, this bill fails a basic test of justice. Punishment should fall on the guilty, not on the exploited. A legal system that denies restitution to a trafficking victim because of immigration status is not upholding the rule of law. It is abandoning moral responsibility. It confuses border politics with human suffering, and in doing so, it cheapens both.

There is a difference between being tough and being just. This bill chooses toughness as a performance while sacrificing justice in practice. It adds penalties without adding protection. It expands forfeiture without expanding victim services. It uses the language of public safety while undermining the very cooperation law enforcement needs to keep people safe.

West Virginia can and should be uncompromising in prosecuting traffickers. We can protect children. We can punish exploitation. But we must not do so by denying the humanity of victims or turning our criminal code into a vehicle for fear-based politics.

HB 4433 does not make West Virginia safer. It makes justice conditional.

For those reasons, this bill should not become law.

Please SUPPORT HB 4547.  Add it to Judiciary Committee agenda.

To not allow mail-in ballots is voter suppression. There are many reasons one might not make it to the polls, and they have a right for their voice to be heard.

Pass Baylee's law.

Baylea was a great person. Her life was ended too soon due to someone else mistake. Let’s now allow slaps on the wrist for lives that have been taken.

DUI is murder. It deserves the same penalty for it.

Justice for Bailey!

I went to high-school and cheered with Baylea. What happened to her is an awful tragedy, but to know that the responsible person may only get 3 to 15 years of their life altered is a slap in the face. Baylea’s family and friends will be affected by this for the rest of their lives. The punishment should fit the crime.

1. DUI laws should be harsher.  We have people with multiple DUIs resulting in death and we should make it harder for them to get out and do it again
2. nothing will ever bring Baylea or any person that had died as the result of dui and the victims family suffer for the rest of their lives
3. I understand that people should be forgiven but they should pay for what they have done first.  Make them think again before getting behind a wheel drinking and driving

Let’s press the issue to get a law for baylea! This girl deserves justice and to be remembered. Let’s not give up on this beautiful young lady who was taken by a drunk driver also under the influence of cocaine when she had no business driving or doing drugs/alcohol. Anyone who provided this girl deserves just as much time as she gets

1. I am very fortunate to not know the impacts of DUI causing death personally, but I do know several families that unfortunately do know how devastating it is to have someone carelessly making the choice to drive impaired.  I agree 100% with passing this into law.  Honestly, I feel a maximum sentence of 30 years isn’t even enough when someone recklessly makes the choice to drive so impaired that they take an innocent life.  But in regards to the current bill being purposed, they absolutely should pass it unanimously!!  15 years is hardly enough punishment for killing somebody.  They made choices that took someone’s life, they should stay behind bars long enough that they could never have the chance to live a life more fulfilled than the one they selfishly took!!

I could never image what Baylee's parents are dealing with. This law needs to pass, the fact someone could be so careless to drive while impaired is wild to me. Especially when a life can be lost!

Please consider passing this bill to ensure people think twice before getting behind the wheel intoxicated. Baylea was such a bright light in the lives of so many people and the person responsible - and anyone who makes the same decision - should face the strictest consequences to ensure it doesnt happen again.

Pass this bill.

1. Brooklynn Thomas

Baylea Bower is my daughter-n-law and one of the most precious young ladies there ever was! Her and our son had only been married 6months but she was /is his soulmate. Nothing will ever fix this but passing this law may very well make people think twice and make better decisions and choices before they get behind the wheel and selfishly take the life of a loved one 💙 A life that belongs to someone else and families that have to live with the bad choices of someone else !

1. I absolutely  hope this bill gets pasted

Dont let this pass by, Do what’s right!!!!

I encourage the passing of Baylea’s law. It is not fair to innocent families for those under the influence to do whatever they please with no regard to anyone else. Innocent families are impacted forever by their choices while they get by with a max sentencing of 15 years. This needs to change.

This bill would keep offenders off the roads and potentially save more lives. The longer they serve, the more they have time to get sober and stay out of their vehicles. Minimum three years and they can drive again?  Possibly drive impaired again?

1. Taking a life should have a longer penalty.

Please pass this. I wish this would count for past dui offenders that have killed innocent lives too such as Isaiah Browns killer, Nicholas farthing. Farthing has gotten away with too many dui’s and he killed Isaiah, who should’ve never lost his life. Same goes for Bailey, please pass this bill. These offenders need to do the correct time for their consequences.

What is just punishment for taking a life? There is no punishment that will ever be enough for the life of someone you love. The current punishment for taking a life by driving under the influence in WV is 3-15 years. Lawmakers, please take a look at Baylea’s Law and ask yourself what would you want the punishment to be if the life taken was your child? A daughter, son, mother, father? What if this was yours? Would 3 years be enough? There are no words to describe the pain of this loss. The punishment could never be enough to erase the pain but 3 years for a life is unbelievable!!! #justiceforbaylea

I pray this bill passes. If it could just save one precious life. This family and others have been through a nightmare.

One is too many to for this to happen to, heartbreakingly it did happen. Do something about it. Such a beautiful woman inside and out was taken because of someone’s ugly actions. Let her love and smile live on. Make people accountable!!!!!!!

I support this bill.

I strongly support Baylea’s Bill and increasing the sentencing of criminals that cause death by DUI.  Anyone driving under the influence should be held accountable and hopefully increasing sentences will make people think before they get behind the wheel.

I feel Baylea’s law is of upmost importance.   Her young life was rapidly swiped from her new husband, loving  family & a massive amount of friends.   When someone blatantly chooses to drink, do drugs and still get behind the wheel of a vehicle to me this means they have no regard for other motorists, no respect for the law and no respect for human life.   Destiny needs to be punished to the extent of the law, Baylea’s law.  Nothing will soothe the ache felt in the hearts of all who love Baylea especially her family but knowing the person responsible for her death is not out and about “living” like their Baylea should be…being young, being in love, becoming a mommy, being a successful business owner, being a community leader, being an aunt, daughter, wife and friend.   Please take the step and pass Baylea’s law.