HB 4797 is an embarrassment. It drags West Virginia into national culture-war theater by creating “First Amendment Freedom of Speech Day” and a memorial week tied to “the date of Charlie Kirk’s birth,” then naming the entire package “The Charlie Kirk Memorial First Amendment Freedom Act.”

If I understand correctly, you are asking the Governor to issue a proclamation praising Kirk and to direct the Department of Education to run student activities recognizing him. That is not protecting speech. That is the state picking a controversial political figure and demanding public participation, while ignoring the full context of who he was.

Kirk has been repeatedly criticized for racist and bigoted statements. His own quotes condemn him.

West Virginia deserves better than becoming a punchline and a headline. There are certainly ways to celebrate the First Amendment without honoring a figure whose public career was marked by hateful rhetoric.

If nothing else I've said matters, please at least consider that Charlie Kirk had no ties to WV, and that we have plenty of WV champions who can be memorialized.

House Bill 4060 addresses a narrow and largely symbolic issue while failing to engage with any of the substantive economic challenges facing West Virginia residents or small businesses.

Cashless retail is not a demonstrated, widespread problem in this state, particularly outside of a small number of urban or chain establishments. The bill provides no data showing that West Virginians are being meaningfully excluded from commerce due to an inability to pay with cash, nor does it identify essential goods or services where such exclusion is occurring.

Additionally, the bill contains minimal enforcement mechanisms and grants broad exemption authority to the Treasurer’s Office, which significantly undermines its practical effect. A modest civil fine and discretionary exemptions suggest that the bill is not intended to produce consistent or enforceable outcomes.

While concerns about financial inclusion, privacy, and access to payment systems are legitimate, this legislation does not meaningfully address those concerns. It does not improve access to banking, reduce payment processing fees, assist small businesses with compliance costs, or protect workers or consumers in any substantive way.

For these reasons, HB 4060 appears to be a symbolic measure rather than a serious policy response to a real economic problem, and it should not be prioritized over legislation that addresses wages, affordability, healthcare, infrastructure, or access to essential services in West Virginia.

Concerning House Bill 4003, the WV First Small Business Growth Act, I am not persuaded that this legislation will reliably accomplish its stated goal of growing small businesses in West Virginia.

The bill provides substantial incentives to financial intermediaries and capital allocators through insurance premium and retaliatory tax credits, yet it contains no enforceable mechanisms to ensure that small businesses—or their workers—receive durable, meaningful benefits. There are no requirements related to wage growth, job quality, worker retention, local ownership, or reinvestment of profits into West Virginia communities.

In practice, the structure of this bill primarily reduces risk for investment funds and insurers while offering only indirect and weakly constrained benefits to operating businesses. The public assumes real fiscal risk through foregone tax revenue, while the upside of successful investments is captured entirely by private actors.

My concerns are informed not only by a close reading of HB 4003, but also by evidence from other states that have implemented similar insurance-tax-credit–based investment programs. These programs have shown mixed or poor results in terms of long-term small business growth and worker benefit, and many have been scaled back, sunsetted, or quietly discontinued after failing to deliver promised outcomes.

For these reasons, I oppose HB 4003 as written and urge the Legislature to reconsider approaches to small business development that include enforceable outcomes, worker protections, and mechanisms for the public to share in the value created by public policy.

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

I have four main concerns:

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

Second, §61-14-1(6):

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

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

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

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

Please exercise your compassion and VOTE NO on HB 4433.

Vote no on this bill! To honor a person who has a history of using racial and hateful comments makes no sense. To honor someone like Charlie Kirk is an embarrassment to all West Virginians. Vote No on this bill!

What is the purpose of this bill celebrating and mandating school lessons for a figure that was both divisive and not from West Virginia? Not to minimize this individual’s contributions but where is the bill for Rep Melissa Hortman who was assassinated?

Separation of Church and State

This bill a glaring civil rights violation. A person with disabilities should not be subject to any non-consensual identification regardless of their “competency,” and allowing law enforcement officers to make potential prejudgments of the people they are interacting with will promote a hostile atmosphere that will inevitably lead to more unnecessary violence. Regardless, this database would be ineffectual as it is based on the expectation that it will be used prior to interacting with individuals. This is unrealistic in any law enforcement scenario.

Law enforcement should be trained on identifying and interacting with people with disabilities on a need-to-know basis. The burden of appropriate communication and procedure should never be placed on ANY civilian, let alone civilians within a population that often have less legal autonomy than their non-disabled counterparts. Again, this violates a disabled person’s constitutional right to privacy, as well as the HIPAA protections they are afforded. Even with the “optional” language used in this bill, there truly is no option for the person actually being loaded onto this database. This bill is out of touch, lazy, and completely negligent to the issue at hand. I am begging the West Virginia Legislature, for once, to center people with disabilities in your decision making rather than using them as collateral.

• Church and state needs to remain separated.

 Yes, this bill says that the faith based organization(s) are to remain indifferent, but that would be very hard to prove that they are not trying to influence the children in any way, and vice versa*.

(c) If the legal parent or guardian of a child objects to the placement of a child at a faith-based organization, on the grounds of religious expression, then the department shall find an alternative placement for the child

• The above needs to be an OPT IN** option not an OPT OUT***. If the parent or legal guardian wants the child to be placed in a faith based organization then let it be. My reasoning for that is if a child is to go to a place of a different faith of them, it will cause great mental turmoil. They are often not allowed to practice their religion, or non religion within faith based organizations. They are often ostracized**** within said group because of this. This in turn is very bad for the child's mental health, and could lead to disastrous outcomes for the child, and/or lasting long term mental health issues.

*vice versa- with the order changed; with the relations reversed; the other way around

**opt in- to choose to participate

***opt out- to choose to not participate

****exclude; exile; refuse to include; to exclude from a group by common consent

While I acknowledge the tragedy of any loss of life, I believe this resolution sets a dangerous precedent by honoring an individual who promoted deeply divisive and harmful ideologies. Charlie Kirk, through his organization Turning Point USA and his public platforms, consistently espoused views that many Americans, including myself, find abhorrent. These include promoting racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, sexism, and Christian Nationalism to name a few. 

The tragic circumstances of Kirk's death should not overshadow the harmful legacy of his work. While we can condemn violence in all forms, we must also be critical of the ideologies that promote division and discrimination in our society. We should be honoring those who bring Americans together, not those who have sowed division and hatred.

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

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