Public Comments

I believe This bill will be absolutely helpful. If we could pass this bill and Eliminate the spring breaks that we in Wv always get when weather is still bad, we would be able to have the 160 days instructional days, as well as Pl days w staff to to be able to do better by our students and schools.

1. Firefighters are 102% more likely to develop testicular cancer than the general population.*
2. Firefighters are 53% more likely to develop multiple myeloma than the general population. *
3. Firefighters are 62% more likely to develop cancer of the oesophagus than the general population.**
4. Firefighters are 21% more likely to develop intestinal cancer than the general population.**
5. Firefighters are 26% more likely to develop breast cancer than the general population**

• Personal property taxation by counties (WV Code §11-6-1 et seq.);
• Annual vehicle registration fees (WV Code §17A-3-2);
• Mandatory insurance requirements (WV Code §17D-2A-3);
• State inspection/NVI requirements (WV Code §17C-16-1);
• Sales and use taxes at purchase (WV Code §11-15-3).

• a flat rate of $0.205 per gallon, plus
• a variable component tied to wholesale price (with minimums/limits).  

• maintain roads/bridges,
• plow and treat roads during winter,
• repair slides/flood damage,
• keep equipment running,
• and meet debt and matching obligations.

• reduce road maintenance operations,
• limit equipment purchase/maintenance,
• reduce contracted work (hurting WV’s economy),
• create harsh-winter funding tradeoffs (snow/ice operations consuming resources and leaving insufficient repair funds later),
• threaten debt service,
• and threaten the ability to fully match the federal highway program.  

• general revenue (competing with schools, public health, and other needs),
• higher registration/DMV fees, or
• local taxes/bonds (hardest on rural counties).

1. a verified fiscal note for this specific repeal, and
2. a replacement revenue plan that maintains State Road Fund stability and preserves federal match capacity—without regressive cost-shifting to counties and working families.

• Reputation of a property
• Volume of police calls
• Allegations or community complaints

• Daily civil fines (up to $1,000 per day)
• Escrow of rent
• Property liens
• License suspension
• Contempt penalties up to $75,000 or incarceration

• Explicitly protect lawful medical cannabis patients from status-based firearm prohibitions
• Require proof of actual impairment, not metabolite presence
• Prevent discriminatory enforcement based on medical treatment

• acknowledge receipt,
• narrow the gate,
• claim jurisdiction limits,
• end communication,
• shift all burden onto the citizen.

• W. Va. Code §29B-1-3 (FOIA) — cited to argue FOIA is for inspection/copying of records and that a request must be made to the custodian with “reasonable specificity,” and that questions about oversight mechanisms are not FOIA requests.  
• W. Va. Code §6B-2-5 and W. Va. Code §6B-2B-1 (Ethics Act “code of conduct” provisions) — cited to assert the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction is limited and to direct complainants to file an Ethics Act complaint alleging violations within those provisions.  

• It shifts power to the better-funded party (often an employer, institution, or government entity).
• It increases the likelihood of delay, procedural hurdles, and cost pressure.
• It makes enforcement of civil rights depend on whether a complainant can endure full court litigation—effectively turning rights into pay-to-access remedies.

• WVU maintained and renewed international partnerships with foreign universities and energy entities during the same years it cited financial crisis to justify domestic program cuts
• These agreements covered energy research, language instruction, and international exchanges
• Senior leadership approved or renewed these agreements while domestic language, culture, and DEI programs were eliminated

• Environmental monitoring gaps
• Public health risks
• Energy and infrastructure funding transparency
• Agency refusal to exercise jurisdiction despite acknowledging complaints

• First Amendment protections (speech, academic freedom, association)
• Equal protection, particularly for communities not aligned with state-preferred cultural or moral frameworks

• Does not establish withdrawal limits,
• Does not require corrective action when over-withdrawal occurs,
• Does not trigger enforcement, penalties, or permit suspension,
• Does not require public disclosure in accessible formats.

• industrial expansion,
• large-scale infrastructure projects,
• data centers and energy-intensive development.

• Prioritizes commercial and industrial extraction in growth zones,
• Provides less protection for rural and environmental justice communities outside those counties,
• Treats groundwater as an economic input rather than a shared public resource.

• PFAS contamination,
• disinfection byproducts (TTHMs/HAAs),
• chromium-6,
• nitrate loading,
• cumulative or chronic exposure risks.

• notice to residents whose wells or aquifers may be affected,
• public posting of extraction data,
• FOIA-ready or machine-readable reporting formats,
• disclosure of enforcement actions or violations.

• long-term aquifer sustainability,
• protection of private wells,
• intergenerational equity,
• or meaningful public participation.

• enforceable withdrawal limits,
• mandatory public disclosure,
• health-based standards,
• cumulative impact analysis,
• and clear enforcement triggers.

• A fiscal impact analysis showing long-term healthcare savings
• Evidence that gym membership deductions reduce state healthcare costs
• Safeguards to prevent revenue loss during an already constrained state budget

• Broad, income-neutral health credits
• Investments in community recreation infrastructure
• Expanded access to preventive healthcare and rural wellness programs

• Secondary sources (treatises, law review articles, academic texts) are persuasive only
• They are not binding law

• West Virginia common law
• Longstanding judicial practice
• Separation-of-powers doctrine

• Chill enforcement of federal constitutional rights
• Invite litigation challenging WV court compliance with federal precedent
• Increase reversals by federal courts

• Due process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV; W. Va. Const. art. III, §10)
• Equal protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV; W. Va. Const. art. III, §17)
• Religious freedom and establishment (U.S. Const. amend. I; W. Va. Const. art. III, §15)

• Judicial reasoning
• Historical context
• Scholarly interpretation
• Prior case law synthesis

• Certification procedures already exist under court rules and practice
• Courts already have discretion to seek appellate clarification
• No evidence is presented that current mechanisms are insufficient

• Civil rights claims
• Disability protections
• Medical autonomy
• Equal protection challenges
• Minority and marginalized community cases

• W. Va. Const. art. VIII (Judicial Department)
• Longstanding common-law principles

I strongly oppose HB 4600.

This bill does not strengthen election integrity. It weakens democracy by discarding legally cast ballots for reasons entirely outside the voter’s control.

HB 4600 would require absentee ballots to be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, regardless of whether the voter mailed the ballot on time. In a rural state like West Virginia—where mail service can be slow, unpredictable, and dependent on geography—this is not a neutral administrative change. It is a deliberate barrier to participation.

West Virginians who follow the rules should not lose their vote because of a mail delay they did not cause.

This bill disproportionately harms rural voters, elderly voters, voters with disabilities, and West Virginians serving in uniform or living overseas. These citizens rely on absentee voting not for convenience, but out of necessity. HB 4600 tells them their vote matters less if it arrives a day late, even when it was mailed on time.

That is unacceptable.

There is no evidence of widespread absentee ballot fraud in West Virginia that justifies this change. None. HB 4600 addresses a problem that does not exist, while creating a very real problem for lawful voters. That is not election integrity; it is voter suppression by bureaucratic deadline.

Our Constitution protects the right to vote. The role of government is to count valid ballots, not invent new ways to throw them out. A ballot postmarked by Election Day is a lawful expression of the voter’s will and should be counted. Period.

If the Legislature truly wanted to strengthen confidence in elections, it would focus on transparency, adequate election funding, reliable mail service, and clear chain-of-custody rules—not arbitrary cutoffs that silence voters after they have done everything right.

HB 4600 moves West Virginia in the wrong direction. It makes participation harder, not easier. It undermines trust rather than building it.

I urge the Legislature to reject this bill and stand up for the fundamental right to vote—for all West Virginians, in every county.

• lawful under federal or state law, or
• constitutional under court rulings.

• property transactions,
• financial account actions, and
• temporary relocation of children.

• creating state criminal penalties,
• restricting family and custody decisions, and
• extending post-deployment enforcement periods.

• no custody order is violated, and
• no finding of harm or abandonment exists.

• impose criminal penalties, or
• enforce family restrictions when the underlying deployment is unlawful or unconstitutional.

• incidents are not documented,
• footage is denied,
• officers are not identifiable, results in no oversight and no remedy for the public.

• failure to enforce existing harassment and stalking laws,
• refusal to document incidents,
• denial of public records,
• or lack of officer identification.

• proper documentation,
• public access to records,
• identifiable officers,
• and enforcement of existing harassment and stalking laws,

• evidence-based standards of care
• professional duty to treat medically indicated conditions
• non-discrimination in access to healthcare

• allows refusal of care based on ideology, and
• simultaneously limits a patient’s ability to seek legal remedy

• immigration-status inquiries during routine policing,
• data sharing for immigration enforcement purposes,
• or the use of minor law enforcement encounters as “impact” metrics,

• Please support House bill 4715. Without going into the details of explaining the bill, my primary goal is to keep my children in West Virginia. My son is a PA. My daughter-in-law is a doctor of medicine, both practicing in West Virginia.  We are seeing more opportunities opening up in other states, eliminating  the administrative burdens, and want the same opportunity here in the mountain state.   Amending the bill to mandate minimum number of  hours of patient care before eliminating the administrative burden of signing a contract with an Md is recommended and acceptable. I see a nurse practitioner as my primary care and a physician assistant for my specialty doctors and know first hand of their abilities. I would like the ability to choose who I see for medical visits and alleviate the shortage of care providers in southern West Virginia where I live. This bill answers those needs.  Many thanks to the sponsors of this much needed legislation. Respectfully

1. Undefined funding source / amount

• The bill requires the “foundation allowance for instructional funding” to be distributed directly and equally to teachers, but it does not define which line-items or how much money qualifies as “instructional funding,” nor how the amount per teacher is calculated.  
• Without definitions, this could cause inconsistent implementation across counties and budget confusion.

2. “Direct and equal” distribution may not match classroom needs

• HB 4860 mandates funding be equal to teachers rather than based on student enrollment, grade level, subject area (e.g., CTE/labs), special education needs, or classroom size.  
• Equal distribution can be simple, but it can also misalign with real cost differences between classrooms.

3. Procurement controls are reduced

• The bill explicitly exempts purchases from district vendor registration and quote requirements.  
• Those controls exist to prevent waste, favoritism, and price-gouging. Removing them increases risk and makes it harder to ensure best value for taxpayers.

4. Account ownership / liability is unclear

• The account is held in the teacher’s name for “exclusive use,” funded by state deposits, and accessed by P-card.  
• The bill does not address what happens when a teacher transfers, resigns, is terminated, or retires (e.g., who controls remaining funds, how funds are recovered, and who is liable for disputed charges).

5. Online publication is transparency—but could create privacy/safety issues

• Publishing purchases online may improve transparency, but HB 4860 does not specify what details must be posted (vendor name, item description, campus/teacher identifier, redactions).  
• If postings are tied to individual teachers, it could expose staff to harassment or targeted complaints while they are trying to supply classrooms.

6. Training is required, but enforcement/auditing is not

• The bill requires the State Auditor to provide training, but it does not set audit intervals, penalties, dispute processes, or enforcement mechanisms for misuse.  

• Define “foundation allowance for instructional funding” and specify the appropriation/budget mechanism.
• Restore basic procurement safeguards (e.g., allow exemptions only up to a dollar threshold; require receipts/itemization; restrict certain merchant categories).
• Add clear rules for allowable purchases, returns, lost/stolen cards, fraud reporting, and what happens to funds when employment ends.
• Require standardized transparency postings with redaction rules and no personally identifying details beyond what is necessary.

1. State Policy Focuses on Corporate Infrastructure Rather Than Community Needs The bill declares data centers to be “critical national infrastructure” and directs the Department of Economic Development to certify and accommodate these facilities. The bill does not include parallel findings or programs addressing the needs of residents, small businesses, local infrastructure, or essential public services such as water, wastewater, housing, healthcare, or workforce stability.
2. Absence of Community Benefit or Local Impact Requirements HB 4854 does not require community benefit agreements, local hiring commitments, wage standards, infrastructure mitigation, or contributions to local public services. Counties and municipalities may still bear increased costs related to utilities, roads, emergency services, and environmental oversight without any statutory mechanism to offset those impacts.
3. Indirect Costs Remain With Ratepayers and Taxpayers While the bill prohibits direct subsidies, it does not address indirect public costs associated with high-impact data centers, including increased demand on electric generation and transmission, water resources, wastewater treatment capacity, and environmental monitoring. These costs are likely to be absorbed by residents and ratepayers rather than the private operators benefiting from the infrastructure.
4. Reduced Transparency Through Confidentiality Provisions The bill exempts data center business information from disclosure under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act. This limits public oversight of facilities that are explicitly designated as high-impact and critical infrastructure, even though their operations may significantly affect surrounding communities and public resources.
5. Unequal Treatment Compared to Small Businesses and Local Enterprises Small businesses and local employers do not receive expedited certification, confidentiality protections, or legislative recognition as critical infrastructure. HB 4854 establishes a regulatory and policy framework tailored specifically to large corporate entities without comparable consideration for locally owned businesses that employ West Virginians and contribute to community stability.
6. No Requirement to Align With Environmental or Infrastructure Capacity The bill does not require certification decisions to consider existing water quality issues, wastewater system capacity, environmental contamination, or cumulative infrastructure strain. This is particularly concerning in a state already facing documented challenges with water systems, sewage treatment, and environmental compliance.

• Lawfully present international students,
• Individuals lawfully present under federal Compacts of Free Association,
• Indigenous persons with federally recognized cross-border rights,
• Asylum seekers and parolees awaiting federal adjudication,
• Tourists and visitors from countries subject to heightened scrutiny.

I am writing not as a political voice, but as a parent who is deeply concerned about what House Bill 4961 would mean for my family and my children.

I grew up without financial stability. I worked hard, put myself through school, and built a professional career so my children could have more opportunity than I did. My husband and I both work. We are not wealthy. We carry a mortgage, tuition payments, and the same rising costs every West Virginia family is facing. The Hope Scholarship is not a luxury for us — it is what makes our children’s school possible.

An income cap of $150,000 may sound high on paper, but in real life it does not make a family financially comfortable. It creates a harsh line where families just over the limit lose all support, even though their day-to-day reality looks nearly identical to those just under it. We would not suddenly have extra money for tuition. We would simply lose the support that makes this education possible.

What hurts most is the message this sends. Parents like me worked hard to climb out of poverty and build stability, only to be told that doing better means losing access to opportunity for our children. That feels less like fairness and more like a penalty for upward mobility.

Our children are thriving in their school. They feel safe, supported, and excited to learn. Losing the Hope Scholarship would not mean we suddenly have the means to cover tuition — it would mean stress, uncertainty, and potentially removing them from the environment where they are flourishing.

This bill does not just change numbers on a page. It affects real children, real families, and real futures. Please do not turn the Hope Scholarship into a program that pushes working middle-income families out of educational choice. I respectfully ask you to oppose HB 4961 or reconsider the hard income cap.

My name is Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Action, a nonprofit entity dedicated to defending the right of every American to vote in free and honest elections.

HB 4600 is a straightforward and necessary update to this state’s election laws. It shifts West Virginia away from the current postmark standard for advance voting ballots to an unambiguous rule that every ballot must be received by the close of polls on Election Day to count.

Adopting this legislation will promote integrity and public confidence in elections. By requiring that advance mail ballots be received by the close of polls, HB 4600 will speed vote tabulation and ensure the delivery of timely and accurate results. Shifting to an objective Election Day receipt standard also avoids messy post-election litigation. In states with postmark standards, these lawsuits often revolve around efforts to count late ballots that arrive without a postmark, and thus no guarantee they were not fraudulently cast after the election. Few situations do as much to sap public trust as prolonged vote counting or litigation aimed at affecting election results by counting otherwise illegal votes. This bill’s provisions make both situations less likely.

Moreover, passing HB 4600 would align West Virginia law with the policy currently in effect in the majority of states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over 30 states require ballots to be received on or before Election Day. This includes ‘blue’ states like Delaware and ‘red’ states like Florida. Of West Virginia’s neighboring states, Ohio and Kentucky all require ballots be received by Election Day. Furthermore, polling shows the public strongly favors these laws. In fact, polling conducted by the Honest Elections Project shows that 89% of Americans believe that ballots should be received by Election Day.

By clearly defining the deadline to receive a mail-in ballot, HB 4600 makes it easier for voters to plan ahead. Ensuring that a mail ballot is received by Election Day is a simple requirement to meet, and as I mentioned previously, is a requirement that is overwhelmingly embraced by the voting public.

This year alone, lawmakers in Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah have all acted to set their states’ mail ballot deadlines at Election Day. I urge you join these states and align West Virginia with the clear national standard that all ballots should be received by Election Day.

• Special education
• Art teacher
• Conservation biology
• Health and human services
• History teacher
• Developmental psychology (children)
• Social work
• Elementary education
• Child development
• Educational psychology
• Middle school education
• Early childhood education 
• high school education