Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer

Public Comments

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mary Ann Cline on February 6, 2026 23:55
I 100% support this. We lost our daddy to a drunk driver in 2007.  I had to fight just to get home confinement.  The state “lost” his blood work.  And much more. Making the DUI punishment so that people will really think before getting behind the wheel won’t bring back our loss.  But maybe prevent another daughter, mother, and family, feeling the grief that loss brings. I’d give anything for my kids to know their Poppaw.  I have needed my daddy more days than not and he isn’t there.  Taken from us- because as stated in the police report - “I drank tequila and then took a ambien and drove to McDonald’s.” -Todd Thank you, Mary Ann  
2026 Regular Session HB4077 (Public Education)
Comment by: Vickie Billings on February 6, 2026 23:25
Standardized testing should not even exist.  The grades will speak for themselves.  Kids do not take these tests seriously.  Many kids just don’t want to participate so they just hurry through the test.  If you take away iPads from pre-K to at least third grade or only have them In Steam class.  Get back to pencil and paper allow time to teach cursive writing.  These students are most of the time playing games or on the parents phones it’s. It like they do not have exposure to internet.  But they need to learn to read and write in  The first couple of grades. Standardize tests are not really a way to see real growth.  Some kids are just really good guessers.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Adam Menear on February 6, 2026 23:14
This bill does nothing but attempt to suppress voting.  I was an employee of the USPS, and the more rural the constituent, the longer a post mark and mailing can take.  I’m embarrassed to live in a state where voter suppression is encouraged by anyone.
2026 Regular Session HB4956 (Education)
Comment by: Vickie Billings on February 6, 2026 23:10
I would like to see this bill passed There is no magic in 180 days.  I mean that is the way it was when I went to school and we are much smarter. The state fair is the middle of August and BOE’s want to start school on the tenth Of August.  This is a lot of people’s vacation in wv.  FHA and agriculture students participates  in the state fair.  And little league baseball starts at the end of March first of April and I am in the classroom these kids minds are not on learning not on testing they are wanting to go outside and play.  Four days a week will not work if you extend the workday till five o’clock. These elementary kids are tired at 2:30.  I have first graders asking is it almost time to go home and the cooks will have to have another meal.  If you end school after Memorial Day the days that follow could be makeup days.  But school should end at the end of May.  Give teachers day or two to close up their rooms for the winter.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jordan spears on February 6, 2026 22:20
We need to pass this bill ASAP!!!
2026 Regular Session HB4667 (Government Administration)
Comment by: Samantha Grady on February 6, 2026 21:24
We have an apprenticeship program. This bill has clearly been created by an individual who has no clue about our education or field. It’s lacking a lot of key information. I think I speak for most licensed individuals in our profession when I say…. How about letting the apprenticeship program take off before trying this non sense. Best Regards, Vice Chair WVBBC Samantha Grady
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Crystal Perry on February 6, 2026 21:19
I oppose the restrictions placed on the fundamental right of parents to direct their child's education proposed by House Bill 5053.

I have many concerns with House Bill 5053:

  First, the strict 90-day prohibition for families who wish to homeschool would be the most restrictive in the nation. West Virginia law already enables the county superintendent to seek an order from the circuit court denying the home instruction of a child if they are able to provide probable cause to do so.   Second, as many of you know, families choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons. According to the National Household Education Survey, the number one reason parents choose to homeschool is concern about school environment, including classroom safety, drugs, bullying, or negative peer pressure. In other words, for their children’s safety. Unfortunately, the threat of injury is not an excuse for missing school under West Virginia law.   This bill would prevent these students from being able to start their education in a safe, loving environment for an additional three months.   Third, the bill prohibits students from withdrawing to homeschool (during the specified time)—but would permit them to immediately withdraw to attend a microschool, a learning pod or the Hope Scholarship program. The bill unfairly targets one specific group of people—those seeking to homeschool.   Fourth, the bill makes several allegations against the homeschool community without any factual data to support their claims. For example, the bill asserts that “a county often receives a homeschool notice” upon reaching the pre-petition stage. But the bill provides no evidence that such a statement is true, what constitutes “often,” or the possible reasons this may be the case. Another example of an unsupported statement is the allegation that families may use “homeschool over-the-summer credit” to bypass reading proficiency standards.   Fifth, the final sentence of the bill encourages the West Virginia Department of Education to “identify systemic drivers” for public school families who choose to homeschool. It is unclear what the intent or purpose of gathering this data on homeschool families is meant to accomplish.
2026 Regular Session HB4413 (Public Health)
Comment by: Julia Crowder on February 6, 2026 21:07
I urge you to vote no on HB 4413 and ANY similar bill that would make it unlawful to have needle exchange programs, bringing penalties of no more than $2,500/day to the owner/operators/individuals of these programs. This goes against all the evidence that supports needle exchange programs and other harm reduction programs that have helped Huntington and West Virginia be "ground zero" of recovery. Please turn to the evidence and support our neighbors who are facing substance issues, and do NOT criminalize the helpers.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Margaret Tetoff on February 6, 2026 20:48
I Believe the passage of this bill will hopefully have people thinking before they drink or do drugs .We need stiffer penalty's no matter which offense.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Evelyn Hamilton on February 6, 2026 20:47
Please pass this Bill to save lives in Baylea names.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Timothy Dotson on February 6, 2026 20:32
Please consider keeping our hemp, CBD and THC businesses alive. The people that passed the FBI check should be able to continue providing quality assured products in West Virginia. People like my mom, who has cancer and is using it for the only way she can actually eat, and my wife, who uses CBD as a form of therapy for fibromyalgia, need these products to feel normal. Please don't hurt my family.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sharon Dotson on February 6, 2026 20:26

I have a Christian friend that is cousin to Baylea and the family is devastated.  Destiny  the drunk driver her mom gave her the alcohol at the bar and that wasn't the first time she bragged about drinking on Instagram and did not care. I think Destiny the drunk driver should get 30 years to life in prison for what she did she never so remorse people like that should never get out of jail.

 
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mary Runion on February 6, 2026 19:59
This law needs passed. The driver that killed Baylea Bower was wreckless and careless about the lives of others. I believe that if the punishment for DUI resulting in death is basically doubled like this law suggests, maybe people will be less likely to get behind the wheel when they are drunk or high. It needs passed for the sake of Baylea's family. They will never be the same. Destany Lester might get 3 years, or she might get 15 at her scheduled sentencing on 2/12. Her parents will still be able to contact her, visit, and see her when she is released from prison.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Pamela Pfost on February 6, 2026 19:57
Pass Baylea’s bill. Hold impaired drivers accountable.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Linda Gallian on February 6, 2026 18:11
“As a West Virginian who supports the medical marijuana program. I encourage the passage of this bill with one amendment. The amendment I am suggesting would include our hemp processors to manufacture the edibles. West Virginia hemp processors already have experience making edibles, following regulations, they already handle THC with regulated dosages, And could adjust to this easily. Including this amendment would give the jobs that were promised to West Virginians in our medical program when passed in 2017. We were told we would be considered first. Unfortunately this was not the case. This gives you our legislature a chance to do two things right at one time. This includes giving jobs that were promised to West Virginians first while also supplying edibles to our medical patients. Thank you for your consideration”
2026 Regular Session HB4834 (Education)
Comment by: Brittany Berry on February 6, 2026 17:36
Please sanction women's wrestling in WV. I have a 6year old who loves it. Thank you for your time.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Erica Caudill on February 6, 2026 17:28
I think it is very important that this law get passed because people that drink and drive hardly ever have consequences of their actions.  With the law getting passed, hopefully it will make people realize that it puts their self and everyone else at danger.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Larry Gray on February 6, 2026 17:10
3 years is not enough for taking a life time away from family and friends.  Baylea had so much to live for.
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Melody Sheppard on February 6, 2026 17:02
I oppose this bill for several reasons.
  1.  As a longtime homeschool advocate in communication with thousands of homeschoolers who have removed their child(ren) from the public school system, I can verify the vast majority have removed their children after either a bullying situation or a medical condition.  In the case of bullying it was deemed necessary to keep the child home immediately to protect the physical and emotional well being of the child thus leading to more days missed from school, but the child was protected from the attackers.  In the case of a medical condition, it is no secret more children are exhibiting chronic conditions than ever before.  In some cases the families have exhausted funds to continually seek a medical excuse.  Forcing a family to continue in their present state for any period of time is cruel.  There are no provisions in this law for keeping children safe in these situations. Also, we are writing law based on an assumption?  "The county often receives a homeschool notice..."  Where is the statistical proof of that beyond the assumption (heresay) of county personnel who find it difficult to maintain the homeschool records they are charged by the law to collect?  Ask counties such as Kanawha, who lost all their homeschool records a few years ago and my own county of Lewis who sent me a letter stating the records were lost and asked if I would re-submit.
  2. There is a "concern"  that parents "may".... are we making law based on a statistically undocumented assumption??  This portion does not even make sense.  From the parents I have contact, their stories describe realizing their public school children who are in 3-5th grades cannot read.  Some parents have removed their children from public school for the express purpose of teaching the child to read and then returning to public school.  The actual statistics as posted on the WVDE website and various news articles state WV public school children are less than 50% proficient in the ability to read and basic math skills.  It is jaw dropping your efforts are turned toward homeschooling when thousands of children in the public school system are unable to read.
  3. This bill targets one small group in the entire state - homeschoolers.  A parent can remove a child to apply for the Hope Scholarship, microschool, or learning pod without this unfair regulation applying to them.  Homeschoolers are those who do not take public funds for education.  This bill implies that those who take public funds (Hope Scholarship) can remove their child from public school even if the child has been truant for months.  Likewise if the parent enrolls the child in a microschool (paid teacher) or learning pod (unpaid volunteer), this proposed legislation would not apply and they could freely leave the public school without question.  Is this discrimination?
  4. The last portion is a puzzle as there is zero indication of what the law is requiring..."a comprehensive study of public school families who choose to homeschool to identify systematic drivers for the decision".  Is this like an inquisition? An exit poll? A court order to explain a parent's decision?  What kind of questions will be asked in this comprehensive study?  Does your family attend church...Do you have a social lifestyle...Are you a conservative or liberal....This legislation is so open ended it could entail anything!  It IS clear it entails questioning parents about a decision made in the upbringing of their children, which is a God-given right.  I am shocked of the wording and intent of this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: April Blake on February 6, 2026 16:52
I would definitely support edible marijuana . I have a medical prescription for it but my lungs are bad and I'd love to be able to legitimate edibles
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jennifer on February 6, 2026 16:42
As a West Virginian who supports the medical marijuana program. I encourage the passage of this bill with one amendment. The amendment I am suggesting would include our hemp processors to manufacture the edibles. West Virginia hemp processors already have experience making edibles, following regulations, they already handle THC with regulated dosages, And could adjust to this easily. Including this amendment would give the jobs that were promised to West Virginians in our medical program when passed in 2017. We were told we would be considered first. Unfortunately this was not the case. This gives you our legislature a chance to do two things right at one time. This includes giving jobs that were promised to West Virginians first while also supplying edibles to our medical patients. ,   Thank you for your consideration
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Charles Jones on February 6, 2026 16:42
Pass that
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Ashley Branch on February 6, 2026 16:41
This proposed bill does not support parents' fundamental rights of deciding what is best for their children, nor does it consider the difficult choices parents make when they withdraw their children from a public school due to such issues as chronic illness, safety concerns stemming from bullying, mental health concerns or a number of other real issues. This bill treats parents with unwarranted suspicion and favors the state over the parents when it comes to deciding what is best for their children. This is not the type of law we need here in West Virginia.  Rather, we need laws that support parents who daily work hard to care for and protect their children. We need laws that recognize that in the vast majority of cases, parents and guardians not the state, know what is best for their children. We need laws that strengthen,  not weaken parental rights.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Haley Dickens on February 6, 2026 16:41
This bill should absolutely be passed. Driving under the influence is a conscious and preventable choice, and when it results in the loss of a life, the punishment should match the gravity of that outcome. Stronger sentences can “hopefully” act as a deterrent, discouraging impaired driving and promoting safer decisions. This change would also provide a greater sense of justice for victims’ families by acknowledging their loss and holding offenders more fully accountable.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amanda on February 6, 2026 16:25
This bill should pass to hopefully save lives
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Loretta Wires on February 6, 2026 16:04
As a West Virginian who supports the medical marijuana program. I encourage the passage of this bill with one amendment. The amendment I am suggesting would include our hemp processors to manufacture the edibles. West Virginia hemp processors already have experience making edibles, following regulations, they already handle THC with regulated dosages, And could adjust to this easily. Including this amendment would give the jobs that were promised to West Virginians in our medical program when passed in 2017. We were told we would be considered first. Unfortunately this was not the case. This gives you our legislature a chance to do two things right at one time. This includes giving jobs that were promised to West Virginians first while also supplying edibles to our medical patients. , Thank you for your consideration
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Hailey wires on February 6, 2026 16:02
As a West Virginian who supports the medical marijuana program. I encourage the passage of this bill with one amendment. The amendment I am suggesting would include our hemp processors to manufacture the edibles. West Virginia hemp processors already have experience making edibles, following regulations, they already handle THC with regulated dosages, And could adjust to this easily. Including this amendment would give the jobs that were promised to West Virginians in our medical program when passed in 2017. We were told we would be considered first. Unfortunately this was not the case. This gives you our legislature a chance to do two things right at one time. This includes giving jobs that were promised to West Virginians first while also supplying edibles to our medical patients. , Thank you for your consideration
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Eryck Stamper on February 6, 2026 15:51
06 February 2026 LETTER OF SUPPORT – HOUSE BILL 5260 To the Honorable Members of the West Virginia Legislature: Veterans Initiative 22 is writing to express our strongest support for House Bill 5260, a critical piece of legislation that advances patient safety, access, and responsible oversight within West Virginia’s medical cannabis program. HB 5260 represents a thoughtful and necessary modernization of the Medical Cannabis Act. By authorizing regulated processors to manufacture medical cannabis in edible form and clearly defining requirements for potency, packaging, labeling, and child safety the bill ensures that patients can access predictable, consistent, and medically appropriate products. Many patients like veterans, with chronic pain, PTSD, gastrointestinal conditions, or respiratory limitations, cannot safely vaporize or ingest other currently permitted forms. Edibles offer a safer, longer-lasting therapeutic option that greatly improves quality of life. Equally important is the bill’s requirement that all medical cannabis dispensing be reported into the Controlled Substances Monitoring Program. This addition strengthens accountability and transparency while aligning medical cannabis oversight with existing controlled substance safeguards. It improves clinical decision-making, enhances diversion prevention, and ensures that West Virginia’s program continues to operate with integrity and professionalism. HB 5260 is a balanced, responsible reform that improves patient safety without expanding recreational access. It empowers certified patients many of whom are veterans to manage their treatment more effectively, while providing the state with clearer regulatory tools. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Legislature to advance and pass House Bill 5260. Respectfully submitted, Eryck Stamper, Electronic signed Eryck Stamper Daybrook, Monongalia County, West Virginia Veterans Initiative 22, Founder / West Virginia Director
2026 Regular Session HB5247 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:46
I support expanding access to school-based mental and behavioral health services. However, HB 5247 as written raises serious concerns that it may unintentionally harm students—particularly students with disabilities—by creating a parallel, non-transparent intervention system tied to discipline rather than rights-based educational support. Risk of Disciplinary Suppression HB 5247 explicitly links mental and behavioral health services to disciplinary referrals and court diversion. Without clear safeguards, this creates a risk that mental health services become a substitute for due process, rather than supportive, voluntary care. Students may be routed into interventions not because of clinical need, but because of behavior that could be related to disability, trauma, or unmet educational accommodations. Creation of Informal “Behavioral Files” The bill does not address how records generated through assessments, referrals, billing, or court involvement will be stored, used, shared, or destroyed. This raises the risk of long-term behavioral records (“shadow files”) that can follow a student across schools, placements, and systems—potentially impacting educational opportunities well beyond the pilot program. Children outgrow behaviors; records often do not. Disability Rights and ADA Concerns HB 5247 does not explicitly reference or defer to IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Many behaviors that trigger disciplinary referrals are manifestations of disabilities such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, speech or auditory processing disorders, or trauma-related conditions. Without explicit integration with IEP and 504 processes, this bill risks diverting students away from legally protected accommodations and procedural safeguards. Risk of Creating a Second-Tier Student Track By separating students into an intervention pathway tied to behavior rather than inclusive educational support, the bill risks creating a two-tier system: general education students and “behavioral” students. This can lead to stigma, lowered expectations, increased surveillance, and disproportionate impact on disabled, neurodivergent, and low-income students. Lack of Equity and Oversight Protections The bill contains no requirements for: •Parent consent or opt-out protections •Limits on data sharing or secondary use of records •Record retention and destruction timelines •Monitoring for disproportionate referral by disability or demographic group Without these protections, the program could unintentionally deepen inequities rather than address them. ⸻ Conclusion Mental health services in schools should be supportive, voluntary, inclusive, and rights-affirming—not disciplinary by another name. HB 5247 should not move forward without amendments that: 1.Clearly state participation is non-disciplinary and does not replace due-process protections 2.Explicitly align services with IDEA, Section 504, and ADA requirements 3.Prevent the creation and long-term retention of informal behavioral records 4.Prohibit secondary use of intervention data for discipline or court purposes 5.Ensure services are delivered in the least restrictive, inclusive setting 6.Include equity safeguards to prevent disproportionate impact Until these protections are added, I oppose HB 5247 due to the potential for long-term educational harm to students it is intended to help.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: John Wires on February 6, 2026 15:46
As a West Virginian who supports the medical marijuana program. I encourage the passage of this bill with one amendment. The amendment I am suggesting would include our hemp processors to manufacture the edibles. West Virginia hemp processors already have experience making edibles, following regulations, they already handle THC with regulated dosages, And could adjust to this easily. Including this amendment would give the jobs that were promised to West Virginians in our medical program when passed in 2017. We were told we would be considered first. Unfortunately this was not the case. This gives you our legislature a chance to do two things right at one time. This includes giving jobs that were promised to West Virginians first while also supplying edibles to our medical patients. , Thank you for your consideration
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tim DiPiero on February 6, 2026 15:45
I’ve been an attorney for over 50 years, was a prosecutor for nearly six years, law clerked two years for a judge who agonized over reaching the right sentencing decision and have represented many defendants accused of crimes. Due to increased penalties, prison populations over the last forty years have increased by 400% in this country and prison costs have soared causing severe budget issues. The simple truth is increased penalties do not deter crime —- period!
Every murder obviously is horrible for our communities, but they are all different factually and involve first time offenders as well as habitual criminals. Many factors go into what conviction and sentence a defendant receives. More often than we like to admit, poor legal representation can often result in excessive convictions and sentences. For example, an 18 1/2 year watched his friend beat a man to death with a bat and a prosecutor successfully argued he was as bad if not worse than the assailant because he didn’t stop the beating. He got a life with no mercy conviction and has served over thirty years already.
Please don’t automatically increase the penalties before parole eligibility is available as all first degree murder cases with mercy are not the same and should not necessarily be treated the same. The parole board is quite capable of denying parole when there are aggravating circumstances and to grant parole when warranted. Increasing penalties just damage hope and discourage good prisoner behavior.
As an aside, my best experiences in the practice of law have occurred when I’ve seen victims/families of crime forgive the assailant, including in a couple of homicide cases. Additionally, I’ve been blessed to be involved in prison ministry over the last several years, and you would be quite surprised to see how people, many of whom have been convicted of murder, have graduated from Bible college or been heavily involved with various ministries inside the prison, including hospice care. It’s amazing and encouraging to see these guys turn into Bible scholars and prayer warriors.
2026 Regular Session HB4758 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tim DiPiero on February 6, 2026 15:44
I’ve been an attorney for over 50 years, was a prosecutor for nearly six years, law clerked two years for a judge who agonized over reaching the right sentencing decision and have represented many defendants accused of crimes. Due to increased penalties, prison populations over the last forty years have increased by 400% in this country and prison costs have soared causing severe budget issues. The simple truth is increased penalties do not deter crime —- period!
Every murder obviously is horrible for our communities, but they are all different factually and involve first time offenders as well as habitual criminals. Many factors go into what conviction and sentence a defendant receives. More often than we like to admit, poor legal representation can often result in excessive convictions and sentences. For example, an 18 1/2 year watched his friend beat a man to death with a bat and a prosecutor successfully argued he was as bad if not worse than the assailant because he didn’t stop the beating. He got a life with no mercy conviction and has served over thirty years already.
Please don’t automatically increase the penalties before parole eligibility is available as all first degree murder cases with mercy are not the same and should not necessarily be treated the same. The parole board is quite capable of denying parole when there are aggravating circumstances and to grant parole when warranted. Increasing penalties just damage hope and discourage good prisoner behavior.
As an aside, my best experiences in the practice of law have occurred when I’ve seen victims/families of crime forgive the assailant, including in a couple of homicide cases. Additionally, I’ve been blessed to be involved in prison ministry over the last several years, and you would be quite surprised to see how people, many of whom have been convicted of murder, have graduated from Bible college or been heavily involved with various ministries inside the prison, including hospice care. It’s amazing and encouraging to see these guys turn into Bible scholars and prayer warriors.
2026 Regular Session HB4761 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tim DiPiero on February 6, 2026 15:42
I’ve been an attorney for over 50 years, was a prosecutor for nearly six years, law clerked two years for a judge who agonized over reaching the right sentencing decision and have represented many defendants accused of crimes. Due to increased penalties, prison populations over the last forty years have increased by 400% in this country and prison costs have soared causing severe budget issues. The simple truth is increased penalties do not deter crime —- period!
Every murder obviously is horrible for our communities, but they are all different factually and involve first time offenders as well as habitual criminals. Many factors go into what conviction and sentence a defendant receives. More often than we like to admit, poor legal representation can often result in excessive convictions and sentences. For example, an 18 1/2 year watched his friend beat a man to death with a bat and a prosecutor successfully argued he was as bad if not worse than the assailant because he didn’t stop the beating. He got a life with no mercy conviction and has served over thirty years already.
Please don’t automatically increase the penalties before parole eligibility is available as all first degree murder cases with mercy are not the same and should not necessarily be treated the same. The parole board is quite capable of denying parole when there are aggravating circumstances and to grant parole when warranted. Increasing penalties just damage hope and discourage good prisoner behavior.
As an aside, my best experiences in the practice of law have occurred when I’ve seen victims/families of crime forgive the assailant, including in a couple of homicide cases. Additionally, I’ve been blessed to be involved in prison ministry over the last several years, and you would be quite surprised to see how people, many of whom have been convicted of murder, have graduated from Bible college or been heavily involved with various ministries inside the prison, including hospice care. It’s amazing and encouraging to see these guys turn into Bible scholars and prayer warriors.
2026 Regular Session HB4073 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: noel on February 6, 2026 15:31

HB 4073 provides a clear, reasonable, and respectful path for families with sincerely held religious beliefs to access a religious exemption from compulsory school immunizations. Children should not have their education interrupted or denied because their parents are exercising deeply held religious convictions. This bill ensures that families are not forced to choose between faith and their child’s ability to attend school.

Importantly, HB 4073 maintains existing public health safeguards. Medical exemptions remain in place, vaccination requirements are unchanged, and schools continue to receive proper documentation. The bill simply adds a transparent, standardized religious exemption process that respects parental rights while preserving order and clarity for schools.

West Virginia families are diverse, and our laws should reflect respect for conscience, religious liberty, and uninterrupted access to education. HB 4073 strikes that balance thoughtfully and responsibly.

I respectfully urge House Delegates to vote in favor of HB 4073. Thank you for your time and consideration.

2026 Regular Session HB5246 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:31
I oppose HB 5246 as drafted because it increases criminal penalties based on the status of an alleged victim (“athletic official,” including coaches) without adding safeguards to protect minors, preserve self-defense rights in practice, or prevent misuse when the authority figure is the aggressor. 1. HB 5246 elevates penalties without addressing child protection HB 5246 amends W. Va. Code §61-2-15a to increase penalties for assault or battery against an “athletic official,” explicitly including coaches and supervisors. However, the bill does not:
  • Add youth-safety protections
  • Require background checks or abuse-prevention training
  • Strengthen mandatory reporting requirements
  • Clarify exclusions when the athletic official is the aggressor
By contrast, child protection is governed elsewhere in law, including:
  • W. Va. Code §61-2-8 (sexual assault and abuse)
  • W. Va. Code §61-2-14 (child abuse and neglect)
  • W. Va. Code §49-2-803 (mandatory reporting of child abuse)
HB 5246 does not amend or reinforce these statutes, despite expanding legal protection for authority figures who interact directly with minors. 2. Self-defense is lawful, but HB 5246 increases the risk of mischarging minors West Virginia law recognizes self-defense when a person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent unlawful force, serious bodily harm, or sexual assault. These principles are long-standing and constitutionally grounded. HB 5246 does not repeal self-defense, but it creates a procedural imbalance:
  • Enhanced penalties apply automatically based on the injured party’s role as a “coach”
  • Law enforcement may default to treating the coach as the victim
  • A minor acting in lawful self-defense may be charged first and forced to assert self-defense later
This is especially concerning for minors, who face:
  • Reduced credibility compared to adult authority figures
  • Power imbalances in reporting and investigation
  • Fear of retaliation or disbelief
The bill contains no statutory language clarifying that enhanced penalties do not apply when the athletic official is the initial aggressor. 3. Authority-figure abuse is a recognized legal risk that this bill ignores West Virginia law already acknowledges heightened risk when adults in custodial or supervisory roles abuse their authority (see §61-2-15, sexual abuse by custodians). HB 5246 moves in the opposite direction by expanding protections for authority figures without adding corresponding accountability safeguards. This risks:
  • Chilling minors from defending themselves
  • Discouraging reporting of misconduct
  • Reinforcing unsafe power asymmetries in youth sports
4. Public safety legislation must be balanced to be effective Protecting referees and officials from violence is a legitimate goal. However, status-based penalty enhancements without child-safety carve-outs are incomplete public policy. A balanced bill would:
  • Explicitly exempt lawful self-defense
  • Clarify that enhanced penalties do not apply when the official is the aggressor
  • Pair protections with mandatory reporting, training, or oversight requirements
HB 5246 does none of these. Conclusion HB 5246 increases criminal penalties for actions against athletic officials while failing to address the well-documented risks of abuse, coercion, and retaliation faced by minors in supervised sports environments. By expanding protections for authority figures without strengthening child safeguards or clarifying self-defense protections, the bill creates legal and procedural risk for the very individuals youth-sports laws should prioritize: children. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5246 unless amended to include explicit child-safety and self-defense protections.
2026 Regular Session HB4073 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Karen Martin on February 6, 2026 15:28
According to my review of the literature, there are no world religions that formally forbids vaccinations. How specific will this Exemption form actually be? Who will sign off on the legitimacy of the Parents/Guardians request to not vaccinate their child, or can anyone just fill one out because they do not trust vaccines? This is a very gray area of concern for some of us, and too large of a health risk to the rest of the children in our schools and communities. Key religious groups that might have a hesitation are Christian Science (Church of Christ), Dutch Reformed Churches, Independent /Fundamentalist Secs, Amish communities. Key reasons for religious objections are Dietary beliefs, Sanctity of Life, and Divine Healing beliefs. Again, I feel the legitimacy of the Vaccine Exemption Form needs more identifiable and distinct qualifications before it should be allowed. It is too vague for now. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
2026 Regular Session HB5245 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:27
I oppose HB 5245 because it establishes a new, athletics-based scholarship mechanism at a time when West Virginia’s education system is statutorily and constitutionally underfunded, while existing education agencies and academic programs face restructuring, consolidation, or reduction. 1.  Conflict With the State’s Constitutional Duty to Fund Education Article XII, §1 of the West Virginia Constitution requires the Legislature to maintain a “thorough and efficient system of free schools.” This obligation has been repeatedly interpreted as requiring direct investment in instruction, facilities, staffing, and academic support, not indirect or symbolic funding mechanisms. HB 5245 does not appropriate funds for:
  • Classroom instruction
  • Teacher recruitment or retention
  • Academic remediation
  • Curriculum development
  • K-12 or post-secondary academic infrastructure
Instead, it ties educational assistance to athletic event revenue and competitive outcomes, which does not advance the constitutional mandate of educational adequacy. 2.  Inconsistency With Statutory Education Funding Structure West Virginia Code §18-9A-1 et seq. (Public School Support Program) establishes that education funding is to be based on:
  • Student enrollment
  • Instructional costs
  • Equity and adequacy
  • Predictable and stable funding formulas
HB 5245 creates a variable, performance-based funding stream dependent on:
  • Ticket sales
  • Merchandise revenue
  • Athletic competition results
This approach is inconsistent with the statutory framework governing education finance, which prioritizes stability and need-based allocation, not revenue volatility tied to entertainment outcomes. 3.  Education Policy Fragmentation During Agency Restructuring At the same time HB 5245 is proposed, the Legislature has considered or enacted measures that:
  • Reduce or consolidate Department of Education functions
  • Shift administrative responsibilities without corresponding funding increases
  • Alter curriculum standards and historical instruction requirements
Creating a new, separate scholarship fund tied to athletics further fragments education policy, rather than reinforcing the statutory role of education agencies established under Chapter 18 and Chapter 18B of the West Virginia Code. 4.  Scholarships Do Not Replace Statutory Investment in Education Access While HB 5245 creates scholarships for students who participated in high school athletics, West Virginia Code §18B-1-1 establishes that higher education policy must promote:
  • Broad access
  • Academic opportunity
  • Workforce readiness
Scholarships awarded after high school graduation do not address:
  • K-12 underfunding
  • School closures
  • Limited academic offerings
  • Barriers to post-secondary readiness
Statutory education obligations require systemic investment, not post-hoc financial assistance based on extracurricular participation. 5.  Misalignment of Public Purpose Athletics programs are authorized as supplemental, not foundational, to education under West Virginia law. HB 5245 elevates athletic competition as a funding driver, despite no statutory finding that athletics improve statewide academic outcomes or educational equity. Conclusion HB 5245 reallocates attention and revenue toward athletics while statutory education responsibilities remain unmet. Given West Virginia’s constitutional duty under Article XII, §1, and the funding framework established in §18-9A and §18B, public policy should prioritize direct academic investment, not competitive sports-based incentives. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5245.
2026 Regular Session HB5240 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:21
I oppose HB 5240 as written due to its lack of clarity, policy inconsistency, and failure to address existing executive-level import restrictions, which creates confusion for constituents and regulated entities. Factual Background
  • In 2022, the Governor of West Virginia issued an Executive Order directing the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (ABCA) to halt the purchase and sale of Russian-produced liquor, including Russian vodka, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
  • That action was executive, not statutory, and was implemented through state-controlled alcohol distribution, not codified into the West Virginia Code.
  • HB 5240 amends §11-16-10 of the West Virginia Code, which governs nonintoxicating beer, by creating a temporary Class T import license allowing out-of-state beer to be imported for limited events such as festivals and test marketing.
Where the Conflict Exists While HB 5240 does not explicitly repeal or reference the 2022 executive ban on Russian-produced liquor, it creates a policy conflict and regulatory ambiguity by:
  1. Expanding alcohol import permissions in statute while existing executive restrictions on foreign alcohol products remain unresolved and uncodified.
  2. Failing to clarify whether temporary import licenses are subject to:
    • existing executive orders,
    • federal sanctions regimes, or
    • state-level trade or procurement restrictions.
  3. Leaving enforcement to administrative discretion without statutory guardrails, which raises equal-protection, uniform enforcement, and transparency concerns under Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (separation of powers).
Why This Matters
  • West Virginia operates a control state alcohol system, meaning clarity in alcohol import authority is essential.
  • When executive bans exist outside statute, and the Legislature expands import authority without harmonization, it creates:
    • inconsistent enforcement,
    • legal uncertainty for license holders,
    • and public confusion about which products are permitted.
  • If the Legislature intends to maintain foreign-product restrictions, that policy should be explicitly addressed in statute, not left to executive orders that may expire, be modified, or be selectively enforced.
Statutory and Constitutional Concerns
  • W. Va. Code §11-16-10: governs nonintoxicating beer but does not address foreign trade restrictions.
  • W. Va. Constitution, Art. III §10: requires laws to be applied uniformly and not left to arbitrary enforcement.
  • Administrative law principles require that agencies act pursuant to clear legislative authority, not unresolved executive directives.
My Position I oppose HB 5240 unless amended to:
  1. Clearly state that temporary import licenses are subject to all existing executive orders and trade restrictions, or
  2. Require the Legislature to formally codify, repeal, or sunset prior alcohol import bans, including those related to foreign conflicts, to ensure transparency and consistency.
West Virginians deserve clear law, not overlapping policy signals. Alcohol regulation — especially involving imports — must be explicit, uniform, and accountable.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stephanie Massey on February 6, 2026 15:21
This law needs to be passed because a life was lost while the person who took her life was drunk and on drugs. How is that fair!?!? The girl needs to learn a life lesson and sentenced to the max!
2026 Regular Session HB5239 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:18
I respectfully oppose HB 5239, not because educators do not deserve fair and competitive compensation, but because the bill addresses teacher pay in isolation while ignoring the broader statutory duty of the State to ensure meaningful, equitable access to public education for all students. 1. Constitutional and Statutory Duty to Provide Access Article XII, §1 of the West Virginia Constitution requires the State to maintain a “thorough and efficient system of free schools.” This obligation is not limited to staffing classrooms; it includes physical access, geographic availability, transportation, and institutional capacity. When schools are being closed, consolidated, or rendered inaccessible, raising minimum salaries alone does not satisfy this constitutional mandate. A salary incentive cannot substitute for a school that no longer exists or a student who cannot reach one. 2. Conflict With Ongoing Reductions in Educational Infrastructure HB 5239 proposes a significant recurring financial obligation for salaries while, at the same time: •The State is considering reductions or restructuring of the Department of Education •Oversight and professional support functions are being diminished •Communities are experiencing school closures, transportation gaps, and service consolidation Under WV Code §18-2E-5 and §18-9A (Public School Support Program), the Legislature is required to fund education in a way that accounts for student need, district capacity, and system sustainability. Increasing salaries without restoring access, oversight, and infrastructure risks creating a system where funding benefits positions that communities cannot fully utilize. 3. Equity and Disparate Impact on Rural and Low-Income Communities West Virginia is a predominantly rural state. Many families already face barriers including: •Long transportation times •School closures in low-population counties •Limited access to specialized instruction and support services HB 5239 does not address these disparities and may widen inequities, as higher salaries are most likely to benefit districts that already retain staff, while students in underserved areas continue to lose access to physical schools and educational programs. 4. Incentives Without Access Undermine Public Trust Teacher compensation should be part of a comprehensive education policy, not a standalone incentive disconnected from access and accountability. When communities are told education is a priority, yet see schools closing and departments being dismantled, raising salaries alone can appear performative rather than structural. Under WV Code §18-2-5, the State Board and Legislature are charged with ensuring not just employment standards, but educational opportunity. Opportunity cannot exist where access is absent. 5. Needed Amendments or Preconditions If HB 5239 is to move forward responsibly, it should be paired with: •Statutory guarantees against further school closures without access alternatives •Restoration or protection of Department of Education oversight and support functions •Transportation and facility funding tied to any salary increases •Equity impact assessments under WV Code §18-9A to ensure rural and low-income students are not disproportionately harmed ⸻ Conclusion Teacher pay matters. Teachers deserve respect and fair wages. But access to education is foundational. Until the Legislature ensures that communities can actually reach, attend, and rely on public schools, increasing incentives without restoring access fails to meet the State’s constitutional and statutory obligations. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5239 in its current form.
2026 Regular Session HB5236 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:15
I submit this comment with conditional support and concerns regarding HB 5236. HB 5236 proposes to require county-level inspections and random audits by the Secretary of State to confirm that ballot tabulating equipment is not connected to the internet, with written reports made publicly available. This requirement aligns with existing West Virginia law that already prohibits internet-connected voting tabulators and is intended to improve transparency and public confidence. Points of Support I support the bill’s intent to:
  • Verify compliance with existing election law;
  • Require pre-election inspection of tabulation equipment;
  • Increase transparency through public reporting of audit results.
Ensuring that voting equipment is non-networked and auditable is a legitimate election-security interest and consistent with federal baseline standards under the Help America Vote Act. Concerns and Needed Safeguards However, I have the following concerns:
  1. Limited Scope of Audits The bill requires random audits of a percentage of machines in a minimum number of counties. While this is a step forward, it does not guarantee statewide verification. Partial audits may fail to detect isolated non-compliance.
  2. Lack of Uniform Audit Standards HB 5236 does not clearly define:
    • How inspections must be conducted;
    • What technical standards determine compliance; or
    • What corrective actions are required if violations are found. Uniform statewide procedures are necessary to prevent inconsistent enforcement across counties.
  3. Accountability and Enforcement Gaps While the bill prohibits the use of non-compliant equipment, it does not clearly specify:
    • Timelines for remediation;
    • Oversight consequences for repeat failures; or
    • Independent verification beyond the Secretary of State’s office.
  4. Public Trust Context In the aftermath of documented nationwide attempts to challenge certified election results following the 2020 election—despite those efforts failing—election legislation must prioritize consistency, transparency, and enforceable safeguards to maintain public confidence. Incremental oversight improvements should not rely solely on discretionary or limited review mechanisms.
Conclusion HB 5236 addresses a legitimate election-security concern and moves in a positive direction. However, to fully protect election integrity and public trust, the bill should be strengthened to include:
  • Clear statewide audit standards;
  • Broader or more comprehensive verification;
  • Defined enforcement and remediation requirements.
Absent these safeguards, HB 5236 risks providing the appearance of oversight without ensuring uniform, verifiable compliance. I urge lawmakers to amend HB 5236 to strengthen accountability and transparency before passage.
2026 Regular Session HB5232 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:10
I oppose HB 5232 as written due to its failure to address documented civil-rights concerns, lack of accountability mechanisms, and the risk of reinforcing discretionary “moral policing” rather than lawful, rights-based enforcement. HB 5232 proposes financial incentives for law-enforcement officers to reside in distressed communities under the premise of improving community relations. However, incentivizing proximity without strengthening constitutional compliance, civilian oversight, or enforceable misconduct standards risks worsening existing harms. 1. Policing must be grounded in law, not moral judgment Law enforcement authority must be exercised based on statute, probable cause, and constitutional protections, not subjective beliefs, local norms, or personal feelings.
  • The First Amendment protects verbal criticism, raised voices, and offensive speech unless it constitutes true threats or narrowly defined “fighting words.”
  • The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective enforcement based on identity, demeanor, or perceived social acceptability.
In practice, I have experienced situations where harassment, threats, or intimidation by others were dismissed as “free speech,” while my own defensive speech was treated as disorderly. This selective enforcement is unconstitutional and demonstrates a breakdown of equal protection. 2. West Virginia law grants excessive discretion that enables unequal treatment Unlike states such as California, West Virginia pedestrian and public-order statutes disproportionately shift responsibility onto civilians and pedestrians rather than emphasizing the higher duty of care required of motorists and officers. This statutory structure allows officers to default blame onto civilians (“stop, look, and listen”) while avoiding scrutiny of driver conduct or police behavior. Without mandatory bias-limiting standards, such discretion predictably results in unequal enforcement against marginalized individuals. 3. Community integration without accountability increases risk Embedding officers more deeply into communities through financial incentives, without:
  • Independent civilian oversight,
  • Mandatory constitutional-rights training,
  • Clear reporting and badge-identification requirements,
  • Enforceable misconduct consequences,
does not build trust. It instead increases the risk that personal relationships, social norms, and “moral authority” will replace neutral application of the law. Community policing must never mean community-based favoritism or retaliation against those who assert their rights. 4. The bill lacks safeguards against documented misconduct patterns HB 5232 contains no provisions requiring:
  • Documentation of civilian complaints,
  • Protections against retaliatory enforcement,
  • Uniform treatment of speech regardless of viewpoint,
  • Compliance audits tied to receipt of public funds.
Public money should not subsidize law-enforcement programs that lack enforceable civil-rights protections. Conclusion Without statutory safeguards ensuring constitutional compliance and accountability, HB 5232 risks formalizing moral policing rather than strengthening lawful, rights-based enforcement. West Virginia should not expand incentives for law enforcement without first addressing the documented failures in equal protection, free-speech enforcement, and civilian oversight. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to reject HB 5232 or substantially amend it to include enforceable civil-rights protections, independent oversight, and mandatory constitutional training standards.
2026 Regular Session HB5231 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:05
I submit this comment in opposition to HB 5231 due to concerns about oversight, uniformity, and public trust in election administration. While HB 5231 is framed as a security and training measure for voting equipment, it shifts critical election-integrity functions toward county-level discretion without establishing clear, uniform, enforceable statewide standards or independent verification requirements. Context Matters Following the 2020 presidential election—when Kamala Harris and Joseph R. Biden Jr. were duly elected and certified—there were well-documented attempts nationwide to invalidate certified election results through litigation, alternate elector schemes, and legislative pressure. Although these efforts failed and no law succeeded in overturning the results, they demonstrated that election systems are vulnerable not only to technical failure, but to political misuse when guardrails are weakened. Oversight Concerns HB 5231:
  • Delegates voting-equipment security policies to county officials without mandating uniform statewide standards
  • Does not require independent audits, public reporting of testing results, or third-party verification
  • Relies primarily on submission of policies to the Secretary of State, rather than enforceable consistency across counties
This creates a fragmented oversight structure, increasing the risk of uneven practices, administrative error, or loss of public confidence—especially in a post-2020 environment where election legitimacy has already been challenged. Federal and State Law Are Minimum Safeguards Federal law, including the Help America Vote Act, sets minimum standards for voting systems but relies on states to implement strong, preventive controls. Weakening internal safeguards or decentralizing critical procedures increases reliance on reactive enforcement after trust has already been damaged. Conclusion Election integrity depends not only on security, but on uniformity, transparency, and public confidence. HB 5231 does not sufficiently guarantee these principles. Any changes to voting-equipment handling should:
  • Establish uniform statewide standards
  • Require independent audits and public transparency
  • Strengthen, not dilute, centralized oversight
For these reasons, I respectfully urge lawmakers to reject HB 5231 or substantially amend it to ensure consistent, transparent, and verifiable election administration across all counties.
2026 Regular Session HB4947 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Noel on February 6, 2026 15:04

Good afternoon. My name is Noel and I am a resident of Berkeley County, West Virginia. I am here to express my strong support for House Bill 4947.

HB 4947 protects the fundamental right of West Virginians to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs without being forced to choose between faith, education, or employment. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of both the United States Constitution and the West Virginia Constitution, and this bill reinforces that principle in a fair and reasonable way.

Children’s education should never be hindered or interrupted because they are unable to receive a vaccine due to prior injuries, adverse reactions, or their parents’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Children should not be punished for circumstances beyond their control. HB 4947 ensures that families are not forced out of schools, childcare settings, or educational environments simply for exercising medical caution or religious conviction.

This bill strikes an appropriate balance by preserving public health protections while respecting individual conscience and parental rights. It provides clarity, consistency, and protection against discrimination, ensuring that West Virginia families and workers are treated with dignity and fairness.

I respectfully urge House Delegates to vote in favor of HB 4947 and protect religious liberty, parental rights, and uninterrupted access to education for all West Virginians. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

2026 Regular Session HB5230 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 14:59
I respectfully oppose HB 5230 because, while presented as a survivor-benefit adjustment, it creates structural conflicts with existing and advancing retirement and re-employment laws in West Virginia and risks unequal treatment, double compensation, and actuarial instability across public retirement systems. 1. Conflict With Existing Re-Employment and Retirement Law West Virginia law already governs how retirement benefits are handled when a retiree returns to covered public employment. Under W. Va. Code §5-10-48 (Public Employees Retirement System) and parallel provisions across state retirement systems, a retiree who re-enters covered employment may have:
  • Retirement benefits suspended, and
  • Benefits recalculated only after meeting statutory re-employment thresholds.
HB 5230 does not clarify how enhanced survivor benefits interact with:
  • Re-employment after disability retirement,
  • Suspension or recalculation of benefits, or
  • Situations where a retiree may simultaneously receive retirement benefits while re-entering service under other advancing legislation.
This omission creates statutory ambiguity and inconsistent application of retirement law. 2. Unequal Treatment Across Retirement Systems HB 5230 creates a benefit enhancement for one class of retirees and survivors without harmonizing with:
  • PERS,
  • Teachers Retirement System, or
  • Other law-enforcement retirement structures.
Under Article X, §1 of the West Virginia Constitution (uniformity and equal protection principles), benefits and public compensation must be applied consistently and rationally. Granting an enhanced survivor structure without addressing re-employment, offsets, or caps risks non-uniform outcomes between similarly situated public servants. 3. Risk of Double Compensation and Fiscal Exposure HB 5230 does not address whether enhanced survivor benefits would:
  • Be offset if the retiree re-enters public employment,
  • Be suspended during re-employment, or
  • Be treated as an add-on rather than subject to recalculation.
Absent these safeguards, the bill may allow overlapping compensation streams, conflicting with the fiscal-integrity principles underlying W. Va. Code §12-1-3 and the Legislature’s duty to protect public funds. 4. Actuarial and Policy Concerns Retirement benefits are actuarially calculated based on:
  • Length of service,
  • Contribution history, and
  • Defined eligibility conditions.
HB 5230 alters survivor benefits without requiring an actuarial alignment with:
  • Re-employment provisions,
  • Contribution resumption, or
  • Benefit suspension rules.
This undermines long-term solvency and creates precedent for piecemeal benefit expansion disconnected from retirement-system design. Conclusion While supporting fair treatment of injured officers and their families is important, HB 5230 advances a benefit change without addressing re-employment conflicts, uniformity requirements, or fiscal safeguards already embedded in West Virginia law. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5230 as drafted and urge the Legislature to either:
  • Explicitly harmonize it with re-employment and retirement statutes, or
  • Address survivor-benefit equity through comprehensive retirement-system reform rather than isolated amendments.
2026 Regular Session HB5228 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 14:54
I respectfully oppose House Bill 5228 because, as written, it raises serious constitutional, statutory, and enforcement concerns under both federal and West Virginia law. 1. First Amendment – Overbreadth and Vagueness The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects political speech as core protected expression. Any restriction on such speech must be narrowly tailored and use objective, clear standards, particularly in or near polling places, which are classified as limited public forums. While the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted narrow electioneering restrictions to prevent voter intimidation and fraud, it has explicitly rejected vague or overly broad bans.
  • In Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), the Court upheld a narrow buffer-zone restriction, emphasizing the need for precision.
  • In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Court struck down a polling-place speech restriction because it lacked objective, workable standards and allowed arbitrary enforcement.
HB 5228 contains the same constitutional defects identified in Mansky. The bill uses broad and undefined terms such as:
  • “express advocacy”
  • “ballot issue information”
  • “soliciting”
These terms are not narrowly defined and risk criminalizing passive, non-disruptive political expression, including clothing, buttons, or symbolic speech that poses no risk of voter intimidation or election interference. 2. West Virginia Constitution – Free Speech and Due Process The West Virginia Constitution provides independent and, in some cases, broader protections than the federal constitution:
  • Article III, §7 – guarantees freedom of speech and press
  • Article III, §16 – guarantees due process of law
HB 5228 raises due process concerns by imposing criminal penalties without providing clear notice of what conduct is prohibited. Laws that attach misdemeanor liability must provide clear, intelligible standards so ordinary citizens can conform their conduct to the law. Vague criminal statutes violate due process because they:
  • Fail to give fair notice
  • Encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement
3. Risk of Selective and Viewpoint-Based Enforcement HB 5228 authorizes enforcement by multiple actors, including election officials and law enforcement, without clear, objective enforcement criteria. This creates a substantial risk of:
  • Selective enforcement
  • Viewpoint discrimination
  • Unequal treatment of voters based on political belief, appearance, or issue advocacy
Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, laws affecting fundamental rights such as speech must be applied uniformly and neutrally. A statute that relies on subjective interpretation by officials fails this requirement. 4. Criminalization of Protected Expression HB 5228 escalates these concerns by making violations a misdemeanor offense, with potential fines and incarceration. Criminalizing expressive conduct triggers strict scrutiny, requiring the state to demonstrate:
  1. A compelling governmental interest
  2. Narrow tailoring
  3. Use of the least restrictive means available
While election integrity is a legitimate interest, less restrictive alternatives already exist under current election law to address intimidation, obstruction, and disorder at polling places without criminalizing protected political expression. 5. Existing Law Is Sufficient West Virginia law already provides mechanisms to:
  • Maintain order at polling places
  • Prevent intimidation or interference
  • Address election misconduct
HB 5228 is therefore unnecessary and risks constitutional violations without demonstrable benefit to election security. Conclusion HB 5228, as drafted, risks violating:
  • U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
  • U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
  • West Virginia Constitution, Article III, §§7 and 16
By using vague language, expanding criminal penalties, and allowing discretionary enforcement, the bill threatens lawful political expression and invites litigation, liability, and erosion of public trust in the electoral process. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 5228 or substantially revise it to ensure constitutional compliance.
2026 Regular Session HB4069 (Finance)
Comment by: Karen Martin on February 6, 2026 14:50
I do not understand how the passage of this bill would benefit the state of WV, or any other state. Most motorcyclists know when they are traveling through various states, when they have to wear their helmets , and when they do not. I've heard it said that passage of this bill would improve tourism to our state, back in the Manchin era? Helmets are 67% effective at preventing brain injuries in the US, according to researchers, and states with universal helmet laws have a 33% lower head-related fatality rate compared to states without such laws ( Syracuse University Researchers, May 2021). Helmet laws also reduce social costs to a state by preventing serious cognitive disabilities that may later require state funded long term care.  I have been an Occupational Therapist for over 30 years, and spent most of that time working with Traumatic Brain Injury patients.  Preventing these kinds of injuries that will forever alter someone's life, and the lives of their families, no matter how small the percentage is, truly requires rethinking this bill. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Alice Bonnell on February 6, 2026 14:50
Good afternoon. Please consider deferring to support this bill.  According to current exemption C law, if the board of education has concern about a family's choice to home school, the local Board of Education already has recourse as noted in code: "That the county superintendent may, after a showing of probable cause, seek from the circuit court of the county an order denying home instruction of the child. The order may be granted upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the child will suffer neglect in his or her education or that there are other compelling reasons to deny home instruction" Therefore, the local Board of Education is already in possession of regulatory responsibility to act if a child who should not be homeschooled submits documentation to begin home instruction.  This bill would only serve to further weaponize the local Boards of Education against those who choose to educate outside of main stream traditional classrooms.  We have worked so hard to bridge the gap between homeschoolers and public education.  Please do not support this bill.  It will send our progress back by decades. Sincerely, Alice Bonnell
2026 Regular Session HB5214 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 14:47
I oppose HB 5214 because it mandates drug testing as a prerequisite for family reunification without accounting for the current medical, legal, and regulatory realities of prescribed medications and state-authorized cannabis, and because it risks reinforcing revenue-driven systems rather than evidence-based child welfare outcomes. Substance regulation and medical understanding remain inconsistent and evolving across states, particularly regarding prescription stimulant medications (e.g., ADHD treatment) and medical cannabis, which are both legally prescribed yet still treated inconsistently in child welfare proceedings. Federal agencies, medical associations, and states acknowledge that these substances are not uniformly understood, and testing methods cannot reliably distinguish between lawful therapeutic use, historical use, or impairment. Mandating drug tests without statutory safeguards invites false positives, misinterpretation, and discriminatory outcomes. Under West Virginia Code §49-4-604, courts are already required to assess the best interests of the child, parental fitness, compliance with improvement periods, and safety factors. HB 5214 adds a blanket testing requirement rather than individualized judicial discretion, despite existing authority for courts to order testing when evidence supports it. This shifts the process from evidence-based adjudication to presumptive suspicion, which conflicts with due-process principles embedded in child welfare law. Additionally, West Virginia has a documented history of state-funded and state-regulated treatment and rehabilitation systems, including facilities in Huntington, that operated under incentives tied to bed counts, referrals, or program participation rather than successful recovery or reunification outcomes. Conditioning reunification on drug testing risks feeding a revenue pipeline—where a positive or ambiguous test result leads to mandated services, repeat testing, or extended separation—rather than addressing actual harm or neglect. Medical cannabis is legal under WV Code §16A, yet HB 5214 does not distinguish between illegal substance abuse and lawful medical use, nor does it require proof of impairment, risk, or nexus to abuse or neglect. Similarly, prescribed stimulant medications for ADHD and other conditions can trigger test results that are misread absent clinical context, particularly when courts rely on non-medical interpretations. Child welfare policy should prioritize:
  • demonstrated parental capacity,
  • actual harm or risk to the child,
  • compliance with court-ordered improvement periods, and
  • medically informed evaluations.
HB 5214 instead creates a one-size-fits-all testing mandate that risks prolonging family separation, increasing state costs, and entrenching systems that have historically generated statistics and revenue rather than stability and reunification. For these reasons, HB 5214 should be rejected or substantially amended to:
  • preserve judicial discretion,
  • explicitly protect lawful medical treatment and medical cannabis use,
  • require a proven nexus between substance use and neglect or danger, and
  • prevent financial incentives from influencing child welfare outcomes.
2026 Regular Session HB4943 (Education)
Comment by: Meghan Chester on February 6, 2026 14:46

Requiring students to perform the ritual of flag folding, a practice deeply rooted in military tradition, raises significant concerns regarding the compelled speech doctrine. As established in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the state cannot force citizens to confess by word or act their faith in any orthodox tenet of nationalism.

Education should aim to foster critical thinking and civic literacy rather than rote ritualism. When a school mandates a symbolic act, it shifts from teaching about civic values to enforcing the performance of those values. ​Authenticity is the bedrock of genuine civic engagement. Forcing a student to handle a national symbol with prescribed reverence does not cultivate respect; it mandates a physical gesture that may conflict with the student’s personal, religious, or philosophical convictions. The primary concern with mandating flag-folding is the transmutation of healthy patriotism into exclusionary nationalism. By institutionalizing a military ritual in a civilian educational setting, the curriculum risks hyper-nationalism. This environment suggests that "true" citizenship is defined by adherence to specific aesthetics rather than an understanding of democratic responsibilities (such as voting, community service, or dissent). Furthermore, such requirements can marginalize students from diverse backgrounds whose historical or cultural relationship with national symbols may be complex. Forcing participation creates an "in-group/out-group" dynamic that is antithetical to an inclusive learning environment. True civic devotion cannot be manufactured through repetitive physical maneuvers. To safeguard the intellectual and expressive freedom of students, schools should prioritize the study of the Constitution and the diverse history of the nation over the compulsory performance of symbolic rituals.
2026 Regular Session HB5210 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 14:42
I submit this comment in opposition to HB 5210 as written, based on documented public-records failures and transparency gaps that this bill does not address or remedy. 1. HB 5210 Does Not Amend or Strengthen West Virginia FOIA Law West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act is codified at W. Va. Code §29B-1-1 et seq., which declares that “the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” HB 5210 does not:
  • Amend §29B-1-1 or any FOIA enforcement provision
  • Establish penalties for incomplete or obstructed responses
  • Require agencies to certify the completeness of FOIA productions
  • Mandate delivery of records in accessible, non-restricted formats
  • Provide remedies when agencies supply broken links or inaccessible files
As written, HB 5210 leaves FOIA enforcement unchanged despite repeated, documented failures in practice. 2. Documented FOIA Failures Remain Unresolved Through formal FOIA requests related to wastewater infrastructure, environmental compliance, and public funding, the following deficiencies were documented:
  • Missing enforcement records, including WVDEP inspection reports and consent or compliance orders tied to permit exceedances
  • Incomplete disclosures, where responsive documents were acknowledged but not produced
  • Inaccessible records, including contract addenda and bid materials provided only through restricted or nonfunctional links
  • Omission of environmental review documents, such as Environmental Assessments or Findings of No Significant Impact for projects receiving state and federal funds
  • Lack of proactive public notice regarding repeated wastewater permit exceedances and untreated discharge events
These are not theoretical concerns; they are failures of record production and public access that undermine the intent of FOIA itself. HB 5210 does not correct any of these deficiencies. 3. Transparency Is a Necessary Precondition to Expanded Authority When the Legislature expands, reorganizes, or clarifies governmental authority without first ensuring robust transparency, it increases the risk of:
  • Administrative decision-making without public oversight
  • Post-hoc disclosure rather than contemporaneous public access
  • Increased barriers for citizens seeking records related to environmental, health, or fiscal impacts
  • Erosion of public trust in state agencies
FOIA is not merely a procedural statute; it is the mechanism by which constitutional principles of accountability are enforced in practice. 4. Public Health and Environmental Oversight Require Disclosure Projects and programs involving:
  • Environmental compliance
  • Public infrastructure
  • Water quality
  • Wastewater treatment
  • State and federal funding
carry heightened public-interest obligations. Transparency failures in these areas directly impair the public’s ability to assess health risks, fiscal responsibility, and regulatory compliance. HB 5210 does not impose any additional disclosure, reporting, or public-notice requirements despite operating within these high-impact domains. 5. Conclusion and Requested Action Because HB 5210 does not address existing and documented failures in public-records transparency, I oppose the bill as written. At a minimum, any legislation expanding or restructuring governmental authority should be accompanied by:
  • Strengthened FOIA enforcement provisions
  • Clear requirements for accessible record delivery
  • Mandatory disclosure of environmental and compliance records
  • Accountability mechanisms when agencies fail to comply with FOIA
Absent such safeguards, HB 5210 perpetuates the same transparency gaps that have already required extensive FOIA litigation and citizen oversight to uncover. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 5210 as written or amend it to include enforceable transparency and public-records protections.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jillian Shrewsbury on February 6, 2026 14:21
This law would make people think twice before making the selfish decision to drink and drive. Right now, the punishment is bare minimum. If consequences were stronger, people might reconsider their actions. We need a higher standard that truly holds people accountable when lives are taken due to impaired driving.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: James Craig on February 6, 2026 14:10
These laws are insulting to a person who has lost a loved one due to alcohol and drugs. Imagine losing your child in this horrific way and then your  Judicial System giving them little to no jail time. These people need the pay for the loss . Our laws to to be increased and people held accountable for their crimes . Please pass this bill          
2026 Regular Session HB4034 (Education)
Comment by: Karen Martin on February 6, 2026 13:48
I have been a substitute teacher in Marion County for 8 years. I, myself, attended 12 years of Catholic school in my younger days. I do not think this bill has any reason to enter our public school classrooms. It will do nothing for educating our WV students or keeping our state out of the bottom of the least educated ranking in the United States. It will serve no bearing to addressing our education issues in this state. Likewise, the separation of church and state was important to our forefathers of the US Constitution for a reason. The current religious push into politics has further divided Americans, and does not need to enter our public school classrooms, where I feel it will do the same, and fuel the current fire of division in our state. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.  I am currently running for the Democratic Executive Committee in Marion County.
2026 Regular Session HB4012 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: N Haggerty on February 6, 2026 13:43
We do not want you to make it easier for these companies to destroy the beauty of our state.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Vanessa Reaves on February 6, 2026 13:36
Please pass this bill that would expand protecting all of West Virginians regardless of their gender or who they love.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Margaret Hodges on February 6, 2026 13:18
Done
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Cassie on February 6, 2026 13:18
Dear Senators and Delegates, I write with urgent concern to urge you to oppose House Bill 5053 (2026) or any similar legislation that would impose new truancy-related requirements on homeschool families in West Virginia. This bill proposes expanded oversight and timelines that would effectively penalize families choosing lawful home instruction. That is inconsistent with West Virginia’s existing homeschool statute and parental rights protections. Legal Foundations for Homeschooling in West Virginia Under current law:
  • A child may be exempt from compulsory attendance if the requirements of W. Va. Code §18-8-1(c)(2) are met, including a Notice of Intent to provide home instruction that assures instruction in reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies, and an annual academic assessment.  
  • Homeschool parents must submit evidence of a high school diploma or equivalent and assessment results as prescribed by statute, but they retain full responsibility for their child’s education within the statutory framework.  
  • Vocational opportunities are accessible to homeschool students under W. Va. Code §18-5-15g, which requires that county boards permit homeschooled students to enroll in vocational education under the same conditions as public school students.  
These existing provisions affirm that homeschooling is a legitimate and constitutionally protected form of education in West Virginia, not a status to be policed or subject to additional regulatory burdens. Concerns with HB5053 & Truancy Focus HB5053 proposes adding a strict 90-day limit for truancy or pre-petition processes before a family may begin homeschooling. This effectively treats lawful educational choice as a compliance issue rather than a recognized educational path. That shift:
  • Departs from the statutory exemption process outlined in §18-8-1(c)(2).  
  • Risks creating penal consequences for parents exercising their right to educate their children at home.
  • Encourages a system that prioritizes surveillance over support — contrary to principles of family autonomy and limited government intrusion.
Parental Rights and Constitutional Context Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children under the U.S. Constitution. This principle is reinforced by Article III of the West Virginia Constitution, which protects individual liberties and limits unwarranted government intrusion. Any legislation that treats homeschooling as a problem to be controlled rather than a lawful, recognized option undermines these constitutional foundations. Request for Immediate Action For these reasons, I respectfully but urgently ask you to oppose HB5053 and any similar measures that expand government authority into the private educational decisions of West Virginia families. Instead, support policies that protect parental rights, uphold the statutory homeschool framework, and preserve educational freedom. Thank you for your consideration and prompt attention to this important matter.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amy Whittington on February 6, 2026 13:11
I think that fines and incarceration time should be doubled for any driving under the influence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rhonda Mortimer on February 6, 2026 13:07
You can rob someone at gun point and get a life a life sentence. but killing impaired you don’t get that much time. There should be no difference killing is killing no matter what way it was done other than self-defense.
2026 Regular Session HB5206 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 12:42
I respectfully oppose HB 5206 because it raises serious constitutional, legal, and fiscal concerns and risks repeating costly mistakes already experienced in West Virginia. 1. Panhandling and solicitation are protected speech Courts have consistently held that peaceful solicitation for donations is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article III, §7 of the West Virginia Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Federal courts treat panhandling as expressive conduct. Laws that single out solicitation for punishment are often considered content-based restrictions, which trigger strict scrutiny—the highest constitutional standard—and frequently fail. 2. Similar restrictions have already exposed West Virginia jurisdictions to lawsuits Local governments in West Virginia have previously faced federal civil rights lawsuits challenging panhandling restrictions on First Amendment grounds. These cases have resulted in:
  • Repeal or revision of ordinances
  • Significant legal defense costs
  • Exposure to attorney-fee awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act)
Passing HB 5206 risks statewide liability, rather than limiting exposure to individual municipalities. 3. HB 5206 risks violating federal civil rights law By criminalizing certain forms of solicitation while exempting others, HB 5206 may violate:
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – civil liability for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law
  • Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection Clause, if enforcement is selective or discriminatory
If enforced unevenly, the bill exposes the state and local governments to civil rights claims and damages. 4. Criminalization is not narrowly tailored Courts require that restrictions on speech be:
  • Content-neutral
  • Narrowly tailored
  • The least restrictive means available
HB 5206 instead imposes criminal penalties for conduct already addressable under existing laws, including:
  • Disorderly conduct
  • Harassment
  • Trespass
  • Traffic and pedestrian safety statutes
These existing provisions already protect public safety without criminalizing speech. 5. Fiscal impact and taxpayer risk HB 5206 creates new enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs while increasing exposure to:
  • Federal litigation
  • Court-ordered damages
  • Mandatory attorney-fee payments
This is contrary to responsible fiscal stewardship, particularly when West Virginia faces ongoing budget and infrastructure challenges. 6. Disproportionate impact Historically, panhandling enforcement disproportionately affects:
  • Low-income individuals
  • People experiencing homelessness
  • Veterans
  • Individuals with disabilities
Criminalizing poverty does not address root causes and increases strain on courts, jails, and social services. Conclusion HB 5206 is constitutionally vulnerable, fiscally risky, and unnecessary given existing law. It invites litigation, repeats past mistakes, and exposes taxpayers to avoidable costs. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 5206 and instead focus on constitutionally sound, evidence-based approaches that protect public safety without violating fundamental rights.
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Tracy Sharp on February 6, 2026 12:36
I oppose the restrictions placed on the fundamental right of parents to direct their child's education.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Margaret M Meeker on February 6, 2026 12:23
Since the first term of Trump the Postal service has not been as efficient.  Voting by mail is done by many including me.  This is how the military personnel are able to vote,  Why do you want to make it more difficult?  Do not pass this bill.  
2026 Regular Session HB5203 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 12:23
I oppose HB 5203. HB 5203 restricts the ability of municipalities to recognize locally issued identification for municipal elections unless that identification is already authorized for statewide elections under state law. This bill does not expand voter access or election security; instead, it removes local discretion and narrows lawful pathways for eligible voters to participate in local democracy. While this bill is not a voter-roll purge statute, it functions as a voter access restriction. By prohibiting municipalities from accepting locally authorized identification, HB 5203 disproportionately impacts residents who rely on municipal services for documentation—including low-income individuals, elderly voters, people with disabilities, unhoused residents, and those facing barriers to obtaining or maintaining state-issued ID. West Virginia already enforces voter identification requirements under W. Va. Code §3-1-34 and §3-2-10, including provisional ballot procedures. HB 5203 does not identify evidence of fraud or administrative failure in municipal elections that would justify overriding local authority. Absent documented harm, restricting acceptable identification methods creates disenfranchisement risk without a demonstrated public benefit. Municipal elections concern local governance, and municipalities should retain the authority to adopt reasonable, secure identification standards tailored to their residents, so long as those standards protect election integrity. HB 5203 replaces local judgment with a one-size-fits-all mandate that limits participation rather than strengthening confidence in elections. For these reasons, HB 5203 undermines voter access, local self-governance, and the fundamental right to vote. I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 5203.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Margaret M Meeker on February 6, 2026 12:18
This is another way to take away my right to vote.  Do not pass this bill,
2026 Regular Session HB5200 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 12:15
I respectfully submit this public comment in opposition to HB 5200 as introduced because it fails to address foundational legal realities affecting West Virginia workers and undermines accountability in areas critical to economic fairness. 1. Employment is Predominantly “At-Will” in West Virginia Under established West Virginia employment law, the default employment relationship is at-will, meaning employers may terminate most employees for any reason or no reason at all unless prohibited by statute or contractual proviso. This doctrine is recognized under West Virginia common law and confirmed by state jurisprudence, subject to limited exceptions such as illegal discrimination, contractual terms, or clear public-policy violations.  Because at-will employment is the norm, proposed economic development and “entrepreneurship support” initiatives like HB 5200 risk benefitting employers and business interests more than workers, without strengthening employee protections, due process, job security standards, or meaningful recourse for wrongful termination. 2. Statutory and Case Law Protections are Limited While the at-will rule prevails, West Virginia does acknowledge exceptions:
  • Public policy exception – employees cannot be fired for reasons violating a substantial public policy (e.g., refusing to break laws or reporting illegal conduct).  
  • Contractual protections – written or implied contracts may override the at-will presumption.  
However, these exceptions are narrow and difficult for most workers to prove in practice. Without additional statutory protections tied to state economic policy, new business initiatives do not inherently improve worker security. 3. Anti-Discrimination Law Does Not Fully Protect Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity at the State Level West Virginia statutes do not expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision means that such discrimination is unlawful in employment under federal law, state law has not yet codified these additional protections.  This legal gap means that:
  • Employers in West Virginia may still lack clear statutory deterrence against discrimination targeting LGBTQ+ employees unless federal standards are enforced.
  • Without robust state nondiscrimination statutes tied to business development programs, newly supported businesses could perpetuate exclusion without consequence.
4. Right-to-Work Law Limits Collective Bargaining Power West Virginia’s right-to-work statute, originally enacted in 2016, affects union membership and the financial sustainability of collective bargaining. It prohibits certain mandatory union dues arrangements, which can weaken organized worker power to negotiate conditions and protections.  This statutory framework — combined with at-will employment — makes it easier for employers to dismiss workers without robust protections, even in growing businesses supported by state programs. 5. Lack of Transparency and Oversight in Private Business Incentives HB 5200 as drafted focuses on coordination and promotion of entrepreneurship without establishing:
  • statutory transparency requirements for business support programs,
  • audit and reporting mechanisms for jobs created, retained, or subsidized by state support,
  • oversight to ensure that publicly endorsed businesses comply with fair-employment practices.
Without these statutory guardrails, economic development initiatives may produce “ghost jobs,” inflated job-creation claims, or state support for entities that do not deliver equitable economic outcomes. Summary of Concerns
  1. WV law presumes at-will employment, which allows employer terminations without cause except for limited legal exceptions.  
  2. State statutes do not expressly address LGBTQ+ protections by sexual orientation or gender identity in WV employment law.  
  3. The right-to-work law (§21-1A-3) has impacted union leverage and collective bargaining, weakening worker rights.  
  4. HB 5200 lacks meaningful oversight, accountability, and equity provisions tied to state support for private business.
Suggested Legislative Priorities If West Virginia is serious about inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship, the Legislature should consider amending HB 5200 to include:
  • Statutory definitions of equitable hiring standards and anti-discrimination protections extending to sexual orientation and gender identity,
  • Independent audit/reporting requirements for jobs tied to state programs,
  • Worker protections and due process rights that supplement the at-will default,
  • Enforceable transparency measures for any business receiving public support.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Chris Jarrell on February 6, 2026 12:08
Impaired drivers who kill innocent people should receive a minimum jail sentence of at least ten years.
2026 Regular Session HB5196 (Local Governments)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 12:08
I strongly oppose HB 5196 because it expands land-reuse authority to a quasi-governmental corporation without adequate statutory safeguards for constituents, renters, marginalized communities, COFA migrants, or Indigenous people, while weakening local democratic oversight, transparency, and civil-rights protections. The bill allows local governments to delegate land-reuse powers through intergovernmental agreements without requiring meaningful public participation, displacement protections, civil-rights compliance mechanisms, or cultural-land consultation. This creates a serious risk of forced displacement, inequitable redevelopment, and loss of due-process rights, particularly for communities already experiencing housing instability and discrimination. II. Loss of Local Accountability and Public Oversight HB 5196 permits counties and municipalities to transfer land-reuse authority to the West Virginia Land Stewardship Corporation, a body that is not elected by constituents and is not subject to the same level of public accountability as local governing bodies. This conflicts with the intent of West Virginia’s Open Government principles, including:
  • W. Va. Code §29B-1-1 (Freedom of Information Act) Declares that public policy favors full disclosure and transparency so citizens may retain control over government.
By shifting land decisions to a corporation with fewer public-meeting requirements and reduced day-to-day constituent access, HB 5196 dilutes public participation in decisions that directly affect housing, property, and community stability. III. Risk of Displacement and Property Loss for Constituents Land designated as “vacant,” “blighted,” or “underutilized” is often occupied by:
  • low-income residents,
  • renters without formal leases,
  • families on inherited or informal property,
  • elderly or disabled individuals behind on property taxes.
HB 5196 does not include:
  • notice requirements to occupants,
  • relocation assistance,
  • right-to-cure tax delinquency,
  • replacement housing guarantees.
This raises due-process concerns under:
  • W. Va. Constitution, Article III, §10 (due process of law)
  • Article III, §9 (takings and property rights)
Land reuse without procedural safeguards risks economic displacement under the guise of redevelopment, which undermines constitutional protections for West Virginians. IV. Disproportionate Harm to COFA Migrants COFA migrants (Marshallese, Micronesian, and Palauan residents) often live in:
  • high-density rental housing,
  • older or substandard units,
  • areas more likely to be labeled “blighted.”
HB 5196 contains no protections addressing:
  • language access,
  • cultural barriers,
  • housing replacement,
  • civil-rights enforcement.
This raises concerns under:
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000d) Prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance.
  • Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§3601–3619) Prohibits policies with discriminatory effects, even without discriminatory intent.
Displacement caused by land-reuse programs without mitigation measures has been recognized nationally as having disparate impacts on migrant and minority communities. HB 5196 ignores these well-documented risks. V. Failure to Address Indigenous and Cultural Land Concerns Although West Virginia currently lacks federally recognized tribes, Indigenous people live in the state, and land may still carry:
  • cultural significance,
  • burial grounds,
  • ancestral or historical importance.
HB 5196 includes:
  • no consultation requirements,
  • no cultural-site assessments,
  • no acknowledgment of historical land dispossession.
This omission contradicts widely recognized principles of land stewardship and cultural preservation and increases the risk of irreversible harm to historically marginalized communities. VI. Absence of Mandatory Equity and Civil-Rights Safeguards Notably absent from HB 5196 are:
  • nondiscrimination clauses,
  • fair-housing compliance language,
  • public-hearing mandates,
  • audit and reporting requirements,
  • independent appeals processes for affected residents.
Given West Virginia’s documented housing instability, poverty rates, and ongoing civil-rights concerns, expanding land-reuse authority without guardrails is irresponsible and harmful. VII. Conclusion HB 5196 prioritizes administrative convenience and redevelopment speed over constitutional rights, civil-rights protections, and community stability. Without explicit statutory safeguards, this bill risks repeating patterns of displacement, exclusion, and land consolidation that have historically harmed vulnerable populations. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 5196 or substantially amend it to include:
  • mandatory public hearings,
  • tenant and occupant protections,
  • relocation and housing replacement guarantees,
  • civil-rights enforcement language,
  • Indigenous and cultural land consultation requirements,
  • full FOIA and audit compliance.
West Virginia residents deserve development that is transparent, equitable, and accountable — not redevelopment that erases communities.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cody Douglas on February 6, 2026 11:49
Pass this into law..,
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Taylor johnston on February 6, 2026 11:41
I think this bill should pass, to hold people accountable for their actions. People make the choice to drink and drive. Simple because there is no consequences anymore. Holding them accountable is one way to make people take a second look impaired or not. A human is selfish, if it impacts them it will hold better value.
2026 Regular Session HB4641 (Education)
Comment by: Mariah on February 6, 2026 11:39

I strongly support the intent of HB 4641 and the goal of improving the nutritional quality of school meals for West Virginia students. Healthier meals that reduce added sugar and sodium and prioritize nutrient dense foods are unquestionably in the best interest of children and families.

That said, I believe it is important to raise a practical implementation concern that may not be fully appreciated. Achieving these nutrition improvements will likely require school nutrition programs to move further away from prepackaged, heat and serve foods and toward more scratch or semi-scratch meal preparation. While this is a positive outcome nutritionally, it represents a significant increase in labor, time, and skill requirements for school cooks and cafeteria staff.

School nutrition employees are among the lowest paid personnel in our public schools and are already operating with limited staffing, aging facilities, and tight schedules. Asking these employees to do more complex and labor intensive work without additional compensation, staffing support, training, or dedicated funding risks creating frustration, morale issues, and inconsistent implementation across counties.

If this legislation is to succeed in practice, it must be paired with meaningful support for the workforce responsible for carrying it out. Consideration should be given to additional funding, wage supplements, staffing flexibility, or state supported training and technical assistance to ensure districts can meet these expectations without overburdening an already strained workforce.

I support HB 4641 and respectfully urge the Legislature to view nutrition standards and workforce support as inseparable. Without addressing both, well intentioned policy risks falling short of its intended impact.

Mariah Richards

2026 Regular Session HB5194 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 11:29
I oppose HB 5194 because it removes instructional supports from students in a state that already faces documented barriers to educational access, staffing, and school availability. West Virginia has experienced ongoing school closures and consolidations due to declining enrollment and funding pressures, particularly in rural counties. These closures reduce access to specialized instruction, tutoring, and individualized educational supports. In that context, banning calculators and computational devices for all K–8 students further limits the tools available to students who are already learning in constrained environments. Educational research does not support a blanket prohibition on calculators in early education. Studies have consistently found that appropriate calculator use does not reduce mathematical understanding and can support problem-solving, conceptual learning, and student confidence when used alongside instruction—not as a replacement for foundational skills. The bill provides no evidence that an outright ban would improve outcomes. HB 5194 also fails to address students with disabilities or learning differences. Calculators and computational aids are commonly used as accommodations for students with dyscalculia, ADHD, and other learning disabilities. The bill contains no explicit protections for accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504, creating the risk of inconsistent or discriminatory application across districts. Additionally, the bill conflicts with existing classroom realities. Many school districts already restrict or prohibit student cell phone use during the school day. As a result, students cannot reasonably rely on phones as an alternative calculator, making this policy a net removal of instructional support, not a substitution. Public schools have authority to regulate classroom instruction, but policy decisions should be evidence-based and responsive to current conditions. HB 5194 removes flexibility from educators, offers no replacement resources, and does not address the underlying challenges facing West Virginia’s education system, including underfunding, staffing shortages, and unequal access to instructional supports. For these reasons, HB 5194 is likely to worsen educational inequities rather than improve student outcomes, and I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Elizabeth Starr on February 6, 2026 11:28
I oppose the restrictions placed on the fundamental right of parents to direct their child's education proposed by House Bill 5053.
2026 Regular Session HB4467 (Public Education)
Comment by: Mariah on February 6, 2026 11:22

I support the intent to support pregnant employees and new mothers. However, HB 4467 misunderstands how sick leave banks actually work.

Sick leave banks are funded by employees voluntarily contributing their own sick days, often with additional automatic deductions from all participants when the bank balance drops. Maternity leave commonly lasts six weeks or more. Allowing extended maternity leave to draw from the sick bank will quickly drain balances and trigger repeated deductions from employees who may never use the bank themselves.

This will discourage participation, weaken the sick leave bank, and jeopardize its availability for true catastrophic medical events. The bill does not create maternity leave, it shifts the cost onto other employees’ personal sick leave.

If the Legislature wants to support working parents, it should pursue a dedicated parental leave solution rather than destabilizing the sick leave bank.

Respectfully, this bill needs revision before passage.

Mariah Richards

2026 Regular Session HB5188 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 11:19
I support HB 5188 because it corrects a long-standing and medically unsupported restriction in West Virginia’s Medical Cannabis Act by removing the prohibition on smoking medical cannabis and allowing lawful possession of plant form by certified patients. Under current law, West Virginia recognizes medical cannabis as lawful treatment, yet §16A-3-3 expressly prohibits smoking, even for registered patients acting in full compliance with the program. HB 5188 appropriately amends this contradiction and brings the statute closer to medical reality. For many patients, inhalation is not a preference but a medical necessity. Some patients cannot safely use edibles, capsules, or tinctures due to gastrointestinal, metabolic, or absorption issues. Others require rapid symptom relief that inhaled forms uniquely provide. HB 5188 addresses this legitimate medical need. However, legalization of a form of use does not equal protection, and as written, HB 5188 leaves major structural harms unaddressed. 1. Medical Cannabis Patients Remain Legally Vulnerable Despite Lawful Use While §16A-15-4 provides limited employment protections, it does not require accommodation, does not address housing or probation conflicts, and allows continued punishment whenever “impairment” is alleged without clear standards. As a result, patients may still face:
  • Employment discipline or termination
  • Housing instability
  • Conflicts with probation, parole, or recovery housing
  • Public stigma and selective enforcement
No other class of prescription patients is subjected to this level of collateral consequence solely for following medical advice. 2. Public Use and Vaporization Are Still Treated as Misconduct Even where vaporization is lawful and produces minimal odor or residual effects, medical cannabis patients are frequently assumed to be impaired or engaging in illicit conduct. This persists despite:
  • Lawful certification
  • Off-duty use
  • No observable impairment
HB 5188 does not clarify public-use standards or provide guidance to prevent inconsistent enforcement, leaving patients exposed to discretionary penalties. 3. THC “Nanogram” Enforcement Is Scientifically and Legally Flawed West Virginia’s Medical Cannabis Act (Chapter 16A) contains no statutory THC nanogram threshold defining impairment. Nonetheless, nanogram readings are often used in employment, probation, and enforcement contexts to justify penalties. THC presence:
  • Does not establish current impairment
  • Can persist for days or weeks after lawful use
  • Does not correlate reliably with cognitive or motor function
West Virginia does not impose per se blood-level punishment for opioids, benzodiazepines, or other controlled medications. Instead, impairment is assessed based on observable behavior. Medical cannabis patients deserve the same standard. If medical cannabis is lawful under §16A-3-2, patients should not be penalized for residual presence absent evidence of impairment. 4. Legal Access Without Protection Is Not Meaningful Access HB 5188 is a necessary reform, but without:
  • Clear impairment-based standards
  • Protection from nanogram-only punishment
  • Clarification of patient rights in employment and public settings
Medical cannabis patients will continue to be treated as second-class patients under West Virginia law. Conclusion I support HB 5188 and urge its passage. At the same time, I urge the Legislature to recognize that allowing smoking without addressing discrimination, enforcement standards, and residual-THC punishment leaves patients exposed. Medical cannabis patients should not have to choose between:
  • Their medication and their livelihood
  • Their treatment and their housing
  • Their health and their legal safety
HB 5188 is a step forward. It should be followed by reforms that ensure medical cannabis patients are treated like patients — not liabilities.
2026 Regular Session HB4440 (Education)
Comment by: Mariah on February 6, 2026 11:12

I understand and appreciate the intent to address student nicotine use in schools, which is a real and growing concern. However, I am cautious about relying on law enforcement citations to address student possession.

Nicotine use among students is primarily a public health and educational issue, not a criminal one. Allowing citations without clear guardrails risks uneven enforcement and unnecessary involvement of students in the juvenile justice system, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations.

I encourage the Legislature to prioritize school based interventions, education, and diversion before law enforcement action is taken. Clear limits and safeguards would help ensure this bill addresses the problem without creating unintended equity or justice concerns.

Mariah Richards

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sandra Giles on February 6, 2026 11:11
Please pass Baylea,s law. Drunk driving and under the influence of drugs while driving has taken to many of our young people . We cannot bring our beautiful Baylea back but maybe we can stop future loss of life.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Miranda tuck on February 6, 2026 11:10

I think this very appropriate so many of our loved ones not in just boone county has either lost their life mainly do to intoxicated drivers because they are careless just like bayleas life being lost so with that being said I personally stand behind bayleas law I have lost so many loved ones do to intoxicated drivers so please pass this law and just maybe bayleas law will make a difference and bring those numbers down of intoxicated drivers causing death will come down those numbers are increasing and we need them to decrease because even being 50 is way to high of a number if your drinking you should always have a backup and if not call your local nonemergency to give a lift home with out getting in trouble just like if you call about a od or if you narcan someone without getting in trouble all police stations need to share to always call for a lift even if it anit a holiday in order to support bayleas law.

2026 Regular Session SB155 (Education)
Comment by: Mariah Richards on February 6, 2026 10:59

I understand and appreciate the intent of SB 155 to address teacher shortages, but I am concerned about how adjunct teaching positions would be funded.

The bill allows counties to hire adjunct teachers outside the state salary schedule, yet it does not clarify whether these positions would be recognized for state aid. If adjunct teachers are not funded through the state aid formula, counties, especially those already financially strained, may be unable to afford this option.

Without clear funding guidance, this bill risks creating an unfunded mandate rather than a workable solution. I urge the Legislature to clarify how adjunct positions will be supported financially before moving this bill forward.

Thank you,

Mariah Richards

2026 Regular Session HB5186 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:54
respectfully oppose HB 5186 as written, based on my direct experiences engaging with state agencies, local governments, and the judicial system in West Virginia. While the bill is presented as protecting public participation, its structure risks doing the opposite for individuals who rely on the courts as one of the only remaining avenues for accountability, particularly when administrative remedies fail or agencies refuse to act. In my own experience, I have repeatedly attempted to resolve issues through appropriate non-judicial channels, including filing FOIA requests, reporting environmental and public-health concerns, and seeking administrative review. In multiple cases, agencies either delayed responses, denied meaningful relief, or redirected responsibility without resolution. When citizens are left without effective administrative enforcement, access to the courts is not an abuse — it is a necessity. HB 5186 introduces accelerated dismissal procedures, fee-shifting provisions, and discretionary sanctions that create a significant chilling effect on ordinary residents, especially those without legal counsel or financial resources. The risk of having a claim dismissed early and being ordered to pay attorney’s fees may deter legitimate claims from being filed at all, even when wrongdoing exists. This concern is not hypothetical. In my own interactions with local authorities and businesses, I have experienced situations where power imbalances already discourage reporting or legal action. Adding a statutory framework that allows well-resourced defendants to quickly characterize claims as “strategic” places an additional burden on individuals who are simply seeking redress or transparency. Importantly, the bill relies on subjective determinations of “public concern,” “intent,” and “frivolousness” at an early stage of litigation — before discovery has occurred. For individuals challenging environmental harm, public-health risks, discrimination, or governmental inaction, critical evidence is often controlled by the very parties being sued. Early dismissal in these cases risks shielding misconduct rather than preventing abuse. West Virginia already struggles with enforcement gaps, limited regulatory oversight, and barriers to accountability. Any legislation that further restricts access to judicial review should be narrowly tailored, carefully balanced, and accompanied by strong safeguards for individuals acting in good faith. Protecting free speech and civic engagement is essential. However, those protections should not come at the cost of access to justice, particularly for residents who have exhausted administrative remedies and are left with no alternative but the courts. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to reconsider HB 5186 or substantially amend it to ensure that it does not unintentionally suppress legitimate claims, discourage whistleblowing, or protect misconduct from judicial scrutiny.
2026 Regular Session HB5185 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:52
I support HB 5185 because West Virginia cannot continue advancing anti-abortion policies while simultaneously refusing to fully invest in preventive reproductive health care. The state’s current approach focuses on treatment and enforcement after harm occurs—emergency medical care, forced pregnancy outcomes, foster care involvement, Medicaid expenditures, and criminalization—rather than preventing harm in the first place. That is neither fiscally responsible nor consistent with sound public-health policy. If West Virginia restricts abortion access while also: •allowing insurance barriers to contraception and counseling, •limiting preventive care coverage, •cutting public health and education funding, •and shifting responsibility to crisis intervention, then the result is not protection of life, but avoidable medical risk, higher maternal and infant mortality, and increased long-term state costs. HB 5185 acknowledges a basic and well-established principle: prevention is more effective, less traumatic, and less expensive than reactive care. Access to contraception, patient counseling, and voluntary sterilization reduces unintended pregnancies and medical emergencies and aligns with evidence-based healthcare standards already used nationwide. Treating pregnancy only after it becomes a crisis—while restricting the options available to patients—creates an internally inconsistent policy framework that shifts the burden onto individuals, providers, and taxpayers. If the Legislature claims to be “pro-life,” that position must include preventive care, not just enforcement after the fact. Restriction without prevention is not protection; it is policy failure. For these reasons, I support HB 5185 as a necessary step toward aligning West Virginia’s reproductive health laws with medical evidence, fiscal responsibility, and genuine concern for health outcomes.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Marsha Snodgrass on February 6, 2026 10:48
If you are drinking or  if you're medicine say no driving stay at home or have someone else to drive you ,how hard is that 😞
2026 Regular Session HB5184 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:47
I oppose HB 5184 because it regulates bed counts instead of medical care, treats people as statistical capacity units rather than patients, and fails to meet basic legal, medical, and civil-rights standards. 1. HB 5184 regulates facilities, not treatment HB 5184 amends West Virginia’s Certificate of Need law under W. Va. Code §16-2D, restricting the approval of additional substance-use treatment beds in counties exceeding a numerical threshold. However, the bill:
  • does not require evidence-based treatment,
  • does not track patient outcomes,
  • does not ensure access to medication-assisted treatment,
  • does not protect medically necessary patient transfers.
As written, compliance is measured by licensed beds, not whether anyone is actually being treated or medically stabilized. 2. Failure to address medically necessary transfers Modern substance-use treatment requires continuity of care and, when clinically indicated, transfer between levels of care (detox, residential, outpatient, medication-specific programs). HB 5184 contains no language protecting or even acknowledging:
  • inter-facility transfers,
  • cross-county transfers,
  • transfers due to medication incompatibility,
  • transfers required for co-occurring medical or psychiatric conditions.
This conflicts with established medical standards and creates a system where patients may be trapped in inappropriate programs simply to preserve occupancy numbers. 3. Conflict with federal medical-care and disability law By failing to account for individualized medical needs, HB 5184 risks conflict with:
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12132, which requires public programs and services to provide reasonable accommodations and avoid discriminatory exclusion based on disability, including substance-use disorder.
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, which prohibits denial of benefits or services under federally funded programs due to disability.
  • EMTALA, 42 U.S.C. §1395dd, which establishes obligations related to stabilization and appropriate transfers when medical necessity requires it.
A system that caps beds without ensuring appropriate placement or transfer risks constructive denial of care for people with complex medical needs. 4. Incentivizing occupancy over outcomes HB 5184 reinforces a system where:
  • filled beds are treated as success,
  • patient outcomes are irrelevant,
  • relapse, deterioration, or forced program retention go unmeasured.
This is a public-accountability failure. Public health policy should be grounded in outcomes, not raw capacity metrics. 5. Due process and equal protection concerns By restricting access to care based solely on county-level bed counts, HB 5184 raises concerns under:
  • Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (due process), and
  • Article III, §17 (equal protection),
particularly for residents who require specific medications or specialized programs unavailable within capped counties. Conclusion HB 5184 does not improve treatment quality, public safety, or recovery outcomes. Instead, it converts people into statistics used to justify policy claims while ignoring medical necessity, continuity of care, and civil-rights protections. Recovery is not a headcount. Legislation that measures beds instead of health outcomes risks turning treatment programs into warehouses rather than pathways to recovery. For these reasons, I strongly oppose HB 5184.
2026 Regular Session HB5182 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:41
HB 5182 continues a troubling pattern in West Virginia policy: expanding firearm authority into spaces and jobs where guns are not required to perform core duties, despite the presence of existing law-enforcement resources. West Virginia already maintains State Police, Capitol Police, local law enforcement, and contracted security services whose sole role is armed response and threat mitigation. Expanding concealed carry authority to additional government employees does not fill a documented safety gap—it multiplies risk vectors. Recent years have already shown:
  • Irresponsible firearm handling and escalation by legislators and officials nationwide
  • Increased tensions in schools, legislative buildings, and workplaces
  • Confusion during emergencies when multiple armed individuals are present, increasing the likelihood of misidentification and accidental harm
Introducing more armed personnel into non-law-enforcement job roles:
  • Escalates situations that could otherwise be resolved through de-escalation or standard security protocols
  • Raises the risk of accidental discharge, misuse, or wrongful use of force
  • Blurs the line between civilian employment and law enforcement authority
  • Increases liability exposure for the state despite statutory immunity language
Public safety is not strengthened by normalizing firearms as a job requirement. Safety is strengthened by:
  • Clear role boundaries
  • Professional, centralized law-enforcement response
  • De-escalation training and secure facilities
  • Accountability and transparency
At a time when West Virginia is already debating firearms in schools, legislative spaces, and public institutions, expanding armed authority into additional workplaces sends the wrong message: that guns are a default solution rather than a last resort. For these reasons, HB 5182 represents unnecessary escalation, not responsible governance, and should be rejected in favor of policies that prioritize prevention, clarity of authority, and public trust.
2026 Regular Session HB5181 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:37
I oppose HB 5181. This bill repeals W. Va. Code §16B-13-12 and removes West Virginia’s statutory moratorium requiring a Certificate of Need (CON) for new opioid treatment programs (OTPs). HB 5181 is a one-sentence repeal with no replacement safeguards, even though West Virginia has recent, documented problems with recovery-industry oversight, fraudulent conduct, and placement/referral systems that failed in Huntington and Cabell County.  1) HB 5181 removes an upstream public-interest check without replacing it Current law says OTPs are under a moratorium unless they have a CON, and the moratorium continues “until the Legislature determines that there is a necessity for additional opioid treatment programs.” That is a policy safeguard built into §16B-13-12. HB 5181 would repeal that safeguard entirely.  If the Legislature removes this, it should replace it with clear, enforceable standards (site suitability, staffing, patient-safety metrics, transparency, coordination with local EMS/public safety), not simply repeal the guardrail. 2) Huntington shows why “open faster” without strong oversight can backfire Huntington filed litigation seeking information about parolees and sober living homes, tied to concerns that people were being placed in uncertified settings and that the state lacked adequate controls and transparency.  Separately, federal litigation and public reporting have raised serious fraud allegations involving Huntington-based recovery entities, including claims of improper Medicaid billing.  HB 5181 is framed as “removing barriers,” but in a state with real, recent oversight failures, removing gatekeeping without adding accountability increases the risk of:
  • saturation in already over-burdened neighborhoods,
  • “LLC rebranding” to avoid scrutiny,
  • patient brokering / incentive-driven referrals, and
  • Medicaid/payer waste that ultimately hits taxpayers.
3) WV already recognized the referral/placement oversight problem in statute In response to recovery-residence problems, WV enacted Article 59 (§16-59-1 et seq.) (SB 475, 2024), which:
  • requires registration of recovery residences (§16-59-4), and
  • prohibits state entities (including WVDCR, parole board, probation offices, etc.) from referring parolees/probationers/patients to a recovery residence unless it holds a valid certificate of compliance (§16-59-3(a)), and
  • restricts state-treasury and state-benefit funding to uncertified residences (§16-59-3(b)-(c)).  
That legislative action is an admission that WV’s recovery ecosystem needs more structure and enforceable oversight, not less. Repealing OTP CON controls moves in the opposite direction. 4) If lawmakers want expansion, do it safely: “repeal + safeguards,” not repeal alone If the goal is better access to treatment, I support access with enforceable protections, such as:
  • mandatory public reporting of ownership, staffing ratios, capacity, and outcomes;
  • coordination requirements with local EMS/public safety;
  • distance/compatibility standards tied to local zoning and safety planning (without discrimination);
  • strict anti-fraud and anti-brokering enforcement aligned with WV’s patient-brokering prohibitions (see §16-62-2 in SB 475’s enacted framework).  
Bottom line: HB 5181 removes a major statutory safeguard (§16B-13-12) without replacing it, despite recent, documented failures in the recovery space. WV should not weaken oversight until it can demonstrate effective enforcement and transparency across treatment and recovery systems.
2026 Regular Session HB5173 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:30
I respectfully oppose HB 5173 because it misdirects enforcement and accountability away from the true sources of environmental harm in West Virginia while increasing penalties and scrutiny on individuals and rural residents. While the bill claims to address “illegal dumping” and environmental protection, it does not hold industrial polluters accountable for the contamination that has caused real and documented harm across the state. Communities are dealing with long-term exposure to PFAS, PCBs, trihalomethanes (TTHMs), nitrates, mining runoff, and chlorine byproducts in drinking water and surface waters—yet HB 5173 does nothing to strengthen liability, cleanup obligations, or enforcement against corporate actors responsible for these pollutants. Instead, this bill focuses on low-level dumping and litter enforcement, shifting environmental responsibility onto individuals while large polluters continue operating under permits, exemptions, or weak enforcement frameworks. This creates a two-tier system: • corporations externalize environmental and health costs, while • residents face fines, penalties, or enforcement actions without meaningful protection from contamination they did not cause. From my own experience and documentation, environmental harm in West Virginia is not a trash problem—it is a regulatory accountability problem. Residents are billed for water they cannot safely use, told to report contamination to agencies that lack enforcement follow-through, and left without remedies while pollution persists. Bills like HB 5173 risk being used as a distraction, allowing the state to claim environmental action while avoiding the harder work of confronting industrial pollution. If the Legislature is serious about protecting rural communities, public health, and environmental justice, it should prioritize:
  • enforceable contaminant limits for PFAS, PCBs, nitrates, and disinfection byproducts,
  • corporate liability and mandatory cleanup for industrial contamination,
  • transparent enforcement by WVDEP with meaningful penalties for repeat violators, and
  • protections for residents harmed by pollution, not increased punishment for those already living with its consequences.
HB 5173 fails to address the actual sources of environmental degradation in this state and risks criminalizing symptoms while ignoring causes. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this bill and urge the Legislature to redirect its efforts toward holding polluters—not residents—accountable.
2026 Regular Session HB5171 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:26
I oppose HB 5171 because increasing compensation for elected county officials at this time is inconsistent with the Legislature’s duty to protect public welfare, maintain essential infrastructure, and ensure effective regulatory oversight. 1. Legislative authority does not eliminate fiduciary responsibility While the Legislature has authority to set compensation under W. Va. Code §7-7-4, that authority exists within the broader constitutional duty to serve the public interest. Compensation statutes are permissive, not mandatory, and must be evaluated in light of statewide conditions and outcomes. The West Virginia Constitution, Article VI, §51 permits the Legislature to fix compensation by general law—but it does not require increases absent demonstrable public benefit or improved governance. 2. Raises are being considered amid documented public service failures At the same time this bill proposes increased pay:
  • Drinking water protections have been weakened or deregulated through statutory and administrative changes, despite the Legislature’s obligation under W. Va. Code §22-11-1 et seq. (Water Pollution Control Act) to safeguard public health.
  • Infrastructure deficiencies persist, implicating the state’s duty to protect health and safety under its general police powers.
  • Oversight agencies remain under-resourced while expected to enforce increasingly complex regulatory frameworks.
Increasing compensation without first addressing these failures undermines public trust. 3. Tax incentives shift burden to residents while officials insulate themselves West Virginia law authorizes extensive tax incentives and abatements for large commercial and industrial entities through multiple economic-development statutes. These incentives reduce the tax base relied upon to fund:
  • water and environmental enforcement,
  • infrastructure maintenance,
  • public health agencies.
When corporate tax obligations are reduced and agencies are strained, approving raises for officials sends a clear signal that fiscal risk is being shifted downward to residents, contrary to principles of equitable taxation and public accountability. 4. Accountability and constituent input remain insufficient The Legislature determines:
  • which testimony is accepted,
  • which oversight powers are expanded or restricted,
  • which agencies retain enforcement authority.
When constituents repeatedly raise concerns regarding water safety, infrastructure deterioration, ethics enforcement, and regulatory gaps—and those concerns do not materially alter policy outcomes—compensation increases appear disconnected from performance and responsiveness. 5. Raises should follow results, not precede them Nothing in §7-7-4 or the West Virginia Constitution requires salary increases to be automatic or insulated from policy context. Sound governance demands that compensation increases follow:
  • restored regulatory enforcement,
  • measurable infrastructure improvements,
  • demonstrable responsiveness to constituent concerns,
  • strengthened oversight and transparency.
Absent these conditions, prioritizing raises undermines confidence in representative government. Conclusion HB 5171 may be legally permissible, but it is not justified. Until public health protections, infrastructure, and regulatory oversight are demonstrably strengthened—and until constituents’ concerns are meaningfully addressed—increasing compensation for elected officials is premature and contrary to the public interest. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5171.
2026 Regular Session HB5170 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli flynn on February 6, 2026 10:20
I oppose HB 5170 because it expands open carry inside the Capitol Complex while leaving major public-safety gaps and increasing the risk of intimidation in a space where the public must be able to petition government freely. What HB 5170 actually does HB 5170 amends W. Va. Code §61-6-19 to explicitly allow a person “to exercise his or her right to constitutional carry” and open carry a firearm on Capitol grounds and in the Capitol building, with limited exceptions (Governor’s office; Supreme Court chambers / specified floors). It also states the Senate and House “may develop firearms rules” for their chamber gallery/floor—meaning rules are optional, not required.  Current WV law already addresses threats—HB 5170 doesn’t strengthen it West Virginia already makes it illegal to brandish or use a firearm “to cause, or threaten, a breach of the peace” under W. Va. Code §61-7-11.  WV also criminalizes wanton endangerment with a firearm when someone “wantonly performs any act with a firearm” creating a substantial risk of death/serious injury (W. Va. Code §61-7-12).  HB 5170 does not add:
  • mandatory safety training,
  • clear anti-intimidation protocols for public areas,
  • or enforcement standards for weapon handling in a tense political environment.
Instead, it expands access first and relies on after-the-fact prosecution later. “Constitutional carry” baseline matters here WV already allows many people to carry concealed weapons without a license if they meet statutory conditions under W. Va. Code §61-7-7(c).  HB 5170 expands where open carry is allowed at the Capitol—without adding safeguards that match the increased risk. Campus carry shows WV recognizes “display” can create public-safety problems WV’s higher-education carry law (W. Va. Code §18B-4-5B) authorizes licensed concealed carry on campus in certain circumstances, and it specifically prohibits carrying a pistol/revolver that is “partially or wholly visible” and prohibits intentionally displaying a firearm “to cause, or threaten, a breach of the peace.”  That’s important because it shows WV already understands that visible firearms and “display” can escalate fear/conflict in public institutions. HB 5170 moves the opposite direction for the Capitol: it normalizes open carry in the seat of government, while leaving “rules” largely discretionary.  (Note: I cannot fact-claim that threats increased “since campus carry passed” without WV incident statistics tied to that change. What we can factually say is: WV enacted campus carry for higher education and the law includes a specific anti-display / breach-of-peace provision.)  Machine gun law context (why incremental expansion concerns the public) WV currently makes it unlawful to possess/transport/carry a machine gun unless the person has complied with applicable federal law (W. Va. Code §61-7-9).  And bills have been introduced in recent sessions to repeal §61-7-9 (example: HB 2959, 2025).  Even if HB 5170 doesn’t address machine guns directly, it fits a broader pattern of expanding where and how firearms are normalized in sensitive civic spaces. Conclusion The Capitol is not just another public location—it is where citizens must be able to engage government without fear or intimidation. HB 5170 expands open carry in the Capitol Complex but does not require training, clear handling protocols, or mandatory anti-intimidation standards. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5170 and urge lawmakers to prioritize public safety and democratic access over further expansion of open carry inside the Capitol. 
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Morgan Short on February 6, 2026 10:16
I support this law proposed.
2026 Regular Session HB5168 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 10:14
While supporting the goal of improving compensation, crisis response, and mental-health resources for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, I oppose HB 5168 due to its reliance on state lottery revenue to fund an essential public safety service. Key Concerns 1. Lottery revenue is regressive and unstable State lottery proceeds disproportionately come from lower-income households and rural communities. Funding EMS through gambling revenue shifts the cost of public safety onto populations least able to afford it, while offering no guarantee of year-to-year stability. Essential emergency services require predictable funding, not revenue dependent on gambling participation and market variability. 2. Essential services should not depend on discretionary revenue EMS performs a core governmental function comparable to law enforcement, fire protection, and corrections. These services are funded through stable, recurring public revenue because interruption or fluctuation creates public safety risks. Funding EMS through lottery transfers treats lifesaving care as discretionary rather than foundational. 3. County matching requirements worsen regional inequities HB 5168 conditions funding on county matching contributions. Wealthier counties are more likely to qualify, while poorer or rural counties—often with the greatest EMS staffing shortages and response challenges—may be unable to participate. This structure exacerbates geographic inequity rather than resolving it. 4. Moral inconsistency in public policy The Legislature frequently invokes religious or moral principles when regulating personal conduct, yet relies on gambling revenue—an activity many faith traditions explicitly discourage—to fund critical services. Regardless of individual beliefs, public finance should be consistent, transparent, and equitable. Recommended Structural Alternatives Rather than relying on lottery proceeds, the Legislature should pursue durable funding mechanisms, including:
  1. Direct General Revenue appropriations recognizing EMS as a core public safety service
  2. Medicaid and insurance reimbursement reform to prevent EMS agencies from operating at a loss for non-transport and emergency care
  3. Dedicated public safety surcharges (e.g., vehicle registration or insurance-linked fees) tied to service demand rather than gambling losses
  4. Statewide EMS funding standards to reduce dependence on uneven county levies
  5. Targeted use of federal matching funds and grants to supplement—not replace—state responsibility
Conclusion EMS professionals deserve stable pay, mental-health support, and long-term workforce investment. However, funding these necessities through lottery revenue avoids meaningful fiscal reform, shifts burden onto vulnerable populations, and undermines equity across counties. Public safety should be funded as a shared civic responsibility—not as a byproduct of gambling losses. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5168 as written and urge the Legislature to adopt stable, equitable funding mechanisms for EMS statewide.
2026 Regular Session HB4034 (Education)
Comment by: Mathew Anderson on February 6, 2026 10:08
This bill is one that should not be brought up. We learn early in life that the separation of church and state should be abided. By no means will this make behavior better, morale better, or will change the atmosphere within the school district. This is something that brings absolutely zero help to our state, our district, our communities.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tina Asbury on February 6, 2026 10:04
If there were harsher punishments for DUI offenders it may force people to question their decision to get behind the wheel. The harsher punishment will not bring back our loved ones who have been taken away in these tragic events,  but to know that the person responsible has to be removed from their families and reflect on their life changing decisions may help with healing.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Amanda on February 6, 2026 09:56
Not everyone can inhale cannabis. We are losing tax payer money to neighboring states simply because Ohio and Maryland have edibles and recreational use. Your pharmacist wouldn't give you the ingredients to make aspirin, so why are we telling patients in WV to figure out dosing themselves for DIY edibles?   Legalizing (medicinal-for now) edibles is fair. Industry standard packaging is already child-proof. And oh by the way, gummy vitamins exist to give people OPTIONS.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Julie Walker on February 6, 2026 09:51
Baylea’s law should pass because if laws like this were in place, I think people would think twice before getting behind the wheel under the influence. It happens all the time because no one takes the charge serious, it needs to change and what happened to Baylea is a prime example. An innocent life taken because another person didn’t take the law seriously.
2026 Regular Session HB5090 (Education)
Comment by: Brandi on February 6, 2026 09:40
This bill is not only harmful to the students, but the teachers, parents, and guardians as well. Immunizations have been studied and backed by science and are a crucial requirement in keeping everyone safe and healthy!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Roger on February 6, 2026 09:07
No parents should have to go through this
2026 Regular Session HB4970 (Education)
Comment by: Jason goldsmith on February 6, 2026 09:05
if they go to test everybody like this, all the senators and governor needs drug tested as well… all county representatives as well
2026 Regular Session HB5259 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jason on February 6, 2026 09:00
As a patient we should be allowed to grow our own…some people don’t have the money to go to the dispensaries and are on a fixed income…this needs to be voted on by the people
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Matthew Bothwell on February 6, 2026 08:57
I support this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5167 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 08:54
I have serious concerns with HB 5167 because it conditions eligibility for public office on “tax compliance” without first addressing documented weaknesses in West Virginia’s tax administration and enforcement systems. While civic responsibility and tax compliance are important, this bill targets candidates rather than correcting systemic problems in how taxes are assessed, billed, enforced, appealed, and audited. Conditioning ballot access on tax status presumes that the underlying tax system is accurate, fair, timely, and uniformly enforced. In practice, that presumption is not always supported. HB 5167 does not: •Strengthen due-process protections for taxpayers, •Address delayed or improper tax notices, •Improve transparency in assessments or appeals, •Prevent selective or inconsistent enforcement, •Provide independent oversight or auditing of tax authorities, •Or hold state or local tax officials accountable when errors occur. By imposing punitive consequences such as ballot removal and multi-year disqualification, the bill amplifies the impact of any existing administrative errors or inequities, rather than fixing them. This creates a risk that tax compliance requirements could be unevenly applied or weaponized, particularly against challengers, outsiders, or individuals engaged in legitimate disputes. True taxpayer accountability should be system-wide, not limited to political candidates. If the Legislature intends to strengthen public trust, it should first focus on: •Transparent assessment and billing processes, •Clear and accessible appeals procedures, •Uniform enforcement standards, •Independent oversight and auditing of tax agencies, •And accountability mechanisms for officials responsible for tax administration. Without these reforms, HB 5167 enforces outcomes while ignoring the integrity of the process that produces them. For these reasons, I do not support HB 5167 in its current form.