Public Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB 4433

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

• Uses their victimization to support criminal prosecutions;

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

This is punishment without adjudication and deprivation without process.

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

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

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

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

This language risks criminalizing

• Humanitarian aid,

• Mutual aid networks,

• Religious or nonprofit assistance,

• Good-faith support unrelated to exploitation.

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

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

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

To summarize the points, House Bill 4433 violates:

• Equal protection under Article III, Section 17;

• Due process under Article III, Section 10;

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

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

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

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

I respectfully oppose House Bill 4034, which would mandate that every classroom in West Virginia’s public elementary and secondary schools display a framed copy of the Ten Commandments.

This bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Public schools serve students of diverse faiths and belief systems — including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Indigenous spiritual traditions, and those with no religious affiliation at all. A requirement to post a specific religious text in every classroom crosses the line between supporting students’ civic education and endorsing a particular religion or religious interpretation, which the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause prohibits in public institutions.

Mandating the Ten Commandments does not foster inclusive education. Instead, it elevates one religious tradition above others and risks making students who do not share that tradition feel excluded or unwelcome in their own schools. Public education should be a neutral space where all students feel equally respected and supported.

There are already appropriate venues for religious education: families, communities, and religious organizations can teach religious values in contexts where such instruction is voluntary and welcome. Public schools, funded by all taxpayers and responsible for the education of all children, should not be compelled to promote specific religious content.

Moreover, the state faces pressing and practical challenges in education — including teacher recruitment and retention, classroom resources, student mental health services, and academic achievement gaps — that are far more urgent than the placement of religious posters in classrooms. Lawmakers should focus their efforts on policies that support the academic success, wellbeing, and equal treatment of all West Virginia students.

For these reasons, I urge members of the West Virginia Legislature to reject HB 4034.

As a WV native and Tucker County resident, I urge you to give back local control in HB2014.  We have a right to have a say in industries that are wanting to build in our towns and back yards.

Can we please stop with this nonsense. These vaccines keep everyone safe. Look at the current measles outbreaks around the country, why do you think that is happening? We have been leading the nation on thos for years, so let's not go backwards. Protect our kids by listening to actual experts.

• require or expand mandatory CWD testing,
• address known limitations of diagnostic reliability,
• establish public health standards for consumption,
• address environmental persistence of prions,
• or resolve jurisdictional gaps involving captive cervid operations regulated separately under W. Va. Code Chapter 19, Article 2H (Captive Cervid Farming Act).

Removing this tax would provide immediate relief, promote public health, and reflect basic fairness. I urge you to support this exemption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB 4100, the so-called “Baby Olivia Act.” This bill mandates that public schools use specific materials—such as the Live Action “Meet Baby Olivia” video—to teach students about fetal development. These materials are not rooted in peer‑reviewed, scientifically validated research, but rather reflect a particular ideological perspective.

Education, particularly in human biology and health, must be based on credible science and evidence, not propaganda designed to promote a political or religious agenda. If this bill passes and my children’s schools are required to comply, I will remove my children from class on the days this content is taught. Parents should not be forced to have their children taught content that substitutes ideology for science.

HB 4100 prioritizes beliefs over evidence, and in doing so, it undermines both education and trust in public schools. I urge you to vote against this bill to protect science-based instruction and respect parents’ rights.

I am writing to express strong opposition to HB 4079 and HB 4073. Both bills share a dangerous pattern: they prioritize ideology over evidence, and they put communities at risk.

HB 4079 seeks to control language in government communications, mandating specific terms while banning others. This is not about clarity or fairness—it is about government control for the sake of ideology. It overreaches into personal and professional expression and sets a precedent for further intrusion.

HB 4073 would create religious exemptions to West Virginia’s compulsory school vaccination laws. This is particularly alarming because we are seeing measles and other vaccine‑preventable diseases resurging nationwide. Opening exemptions now is not supported by scientific, peer‑reviewed research—it is rooted in belief, not evidence. Public health experts consistently show that high vaccination rates save lives; loosening requirements puts children, families, and communities at unnecessary risk.

Both bills prioritize political platforms and ideology over science and safety. This is not a matter of “liberty” when it endangers lives. I urge you to vote against HB 4079 and HB 4073 to protect freedom of expression, public health, and the well-being of West Virginia families.

HB 4079 is not about “clarity” or “inclusion.” It is about control—the government telling citizens and state employees what words they must use. That is overreach, plain and simple.

Language is personal. It evolves. No law should dictate how people speak, write, or describe experiences. Mandating specific terms in official communications sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into everyday life.

I urge you to reject HB 4079. Protect freedom of expression. Stop the government from policing words.

• Variability in immune response after infection
• Waning immunity over time
• Differences in protection against severe illness versus infection
• The risks inherent in acquiring immunity through illness rather than prevention

From a public health standpoint, policies that implicitly incentivize infection undermine decades of evidence-based disease prevention.

Additionally, immunity status is not static. Scientific guidance evolves as pathogens mutate and new data emerge. Codifying a rigid legal definition of immunity removes necessary flexibility from public health decision-making and replaces evidence-based assessment with statutory mandate.

Public health law functions best when it allows medical professionals to respond to current data rather than requiring them to conform to fixed assumptions about complex biological systems. HB 4070 substitutes legal certainty for scientific nuance, which poses risks to individual and community health.

For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to reject HB 4070 and to rely instead on established public health expertise, peer-reviewed science, and disease-specific evidence when considering immunity and vaccination policy.

HB4509 needs to become law. The burdens connected with data centres that the existing legislation places on communities are extreme.  Water and power demands will leave communities struggling through scarcity or expense under the current law.