Public Comments

Will we be offered any insight as to why we are spending time voting on DL reciprocity with the Republic of Ireland, specifically?

I support evidence-based, physician-supervised medical cannabis under West Virginia’s existing medical cannabis framework. I do not support the widespread retail sale of unregulated or lightly regulated psychoactive products, including kratom and hemp-derived intoxicants such as delta-8, delta-9 (hemp-derived), and delta-10. While HB 4270 is framed as a regulatory authorization rather than a direct ban, it is important to acknowledge the policy distinction between regulated medical cannabis and retail intoxicants sold outside a medical system. Medical cannabis requires physician certification, patient registration, dosage controls, product testing, and adverse-event monitoring. Hemp-derived intoxicants and kratom do not operate under those safeguards. Other jurisdictions have restricted or prohibited these products due to public-health, safety, and enforcement concerns, including local bans on kratom in places such as San Diego and county-level restrictions on certain hemp-derived cannabinoids in multiple states. These actions reflect concerns about inconsistent potency, contamination, youth access, and products marketed as “legal alternatives” to controlled substances. My concern is that allowing intoxicating hemp derivatives and kratom to remain broadly available through retail channels:

• Undermines the medical cannabis program by creating parallel, less-regulated psychoactive markets;
• Shifts risk onto consumers without medical oversight or standardized dosing;
• Creates enforcement ambiguity between legal hemp, controlled substances, and medical cannabis;
• Disproportionately impacts public health while benefiting unregulated commercial actors.

If the Legislature proceeds with HB 4270, regulations should prioritize public health over market expansion, including strict potency limits, age enforcement, product testing, transparent labeling, and meaningful penalties for noncompliance. However, I believe the more responsible policy direction is to limit intoxicating products to regulated medical frameworks, rather than normalize them through general retail sales. In short: I support medical cannabis. I do not support kratom or intoxicating hemp derivatives being sold as retail consumer products without medical oversight.

HB 4025 proposes to add §5F-2-9 to the West Virginia Code to exempt new hires and promoted employees within the Department of Health, Department of Human Services, and Department of Health Facilities from the classified civil service system and from coverage under the state grievance process, effective July 1, 2026. Under current law, the state grievance procedure set forth in W. Va. Code §6C-2-1 et seq. provides one of the only formal mechanisms for reviewing misconduct, unprofessional behavior, retaliation, or denial of services by public employees. Removing grievance coverage for large categories of employees materially limits oversight and eliminates a required process for documenting and correcting improper conduct. The West Virginia Ethics Act (W. Va. Code §6B-1-1 et seq.) has a narrow jurisdiction focused primarily on conflicts of interest, misuse of public office for private gain, and financial disclosures. It does not provide a remedy for poor constituent service, refusal to engage, or improper termination of public communications unless those actions meet a high statutory threshold. As a result, when grievance protections are removed, there is no meaningful alternative accountability mechanism for constituents who experience denial of access to public servants. West Virginia law recognizes that public offices exist to serve the public. The Legislature has declared that public bodies must act in a manner that promotes transparency and accountability (W. Va. Code §29B-1-1, legislative findings of the Freedom of Information Act). While FOIA governs records, not conduct, its findings reflect a broader statutory policy favoring openness and public oversight. HB 4025 moves in the opposite direction by reducing internal accountability structures that help ensure lawful and professional conduct. Additionally, due process principles embedded in both state employment law and administrative law rely on neutral review mechanisms. Removing grievance protections concentrates discretionary authority within agency leadership without an independent review safeguard. Although HB 4025 states that anti-discrimination and nepotism laws remain in effect, those laws (e.g., W. Va. Code §5-11-1 et seq.) generally require external complaints or litigation and do not address routine constituent access failures or day-to-day misconduct. In practice, exempting employees from grievance coverage increases the risk that unprofessional behavior—such as refusal to provide assistance, improper termination of calls, or failure to document constituent concerns—will go unreviewed and uncorrected. This undermines public confidence and leaves constituents without a clear reporting or remedy pathway. For these reasons, HB 4025 raises significant concerns regarding accountability, transparency, and access to public services. If exemptions are expanded, the Legislature should, at minimum, provide an alternative statutory mechanism for independent review of misconduct and denial-of-access complaints to ensure constituents are not left without recourse.

House Bill 4018 amends W. Va. Code §29-31-11, governing disbursements from the West Virginia Flood Resiliency Trust Fund, which was created under the State Resiliency and Flood Protection Planning Act (W. Va. Code §29-31-1 et seq.). While the stated purpose of the Act is to reduce flood risk and protect West Virginians, this bill continues a structural imbalance between governmental reimbursements and direct relief to affected residents. Under existing law, the Flood Resiliency Trust Fund is a special revenue fund (W. Va. Code §29-31-10) intended for flood prevention, mitigation, and protection. HB 4018 expands and clarifies disbursement authority but does not add statutory safeguards to ensure that residents who lose homes or access to housing receive priority or measurable benefit, particularly in flood events where federal Individual Assistance is denied or delayed. Recent flood events in West Virginia and the Ohio Valley illustrate this gap. When FEMA Individual Assistance is not approved or is denied, residents are still required to document losses and navigate complex eligibility standards, while Public Assistance programs reimburse governmental entities for eligible costs such as emergency response and overtime. This results in situations where local governments receive reimbursements while displaced residents receive little or no direct assistance, despite the purpose of resiliency funding being public protection. HB 4018 also ties eligibility for disbursements to compliance with federal programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans (44 C.F.R. §201.6). While planning compliance is important, these requirements can disadvantage low-income, rural, or repeatedly flooded communities that lack the administrative capacity to meet federal benchmarks, further delaying meaningful relief. Nothing in HB 4018 requires:

• prioritization of housing stabilization or displacement prevention for residents after floods,
• transparency showing how Trust Fund disbursements reduce resident-level harm, or
• accountability when funds primarily offset governmental costs rather than community recovery.

As written, HB 4018 reinforces a system where resiliency funding flows upward to institutions rather than outward to impacted people, contrary to the legislative findings in W. Va. Code §29-31-1, which recognize flooding as a recurring harm to West Virginians’ lives, homes, and economic security. For these reasons, I oppose HB 4018 unless amended to:

1. Require reporting on resident-level outcomes, not just project or agency expenditures;
2. Prioritize funding uses that directly address housing loss, displacement, and community recovery when FEMA Individual Assistance is unavailable; and
3. Add transparency standards ensuring the Flood Resiliency Trust Fund does not function solely as a reimbursement mechanism for government operations while residents remain uncompensated.

Flood resiliency should protect people first, not only systems.

HB 4015 expands eligibility for tourism development tax credits by redefining “tourism attraction” to include lodging facilities. This proposal comes after recent executive and budgetary actions that reduced or consolidated tourism-related public functions. While incentives for private development are being expanded, the bill does not restore public tourism infrastructure, accountability mechanisms, or community impact standards. There are no requirements related to wage quality, local hiring, housing impacts, or long-term public benefit. In smaller and rural communities already affected by agency consolidation and infrastructure limitations, expanded tax credits risk concentrating benefits among private developers while shifting fiscal costs to taxpayers. Tourism policy should balance economic development with transparency, equity, and resident well-being, not rely solely on tax incentives as a substitute for public investment.

I respectfully support the bill proposing antler restrictions on the second buck harvest in West Virginia, as it represents a science-based approach to improving herd quality, hunter opportunity, and long-term conservation.

Implementing antler restrictions on the second buck would allow more young bucks to reach maturity, improving age structure and overall herd health. States that have adopted similar measures have seen increased numbers of mature bucks, improved breeding dynamics, and greater hunter satisfaction without reducing participation.

This proposal strikes an important balance between opportunity and responsibility. Hunters would still be able to harvest a buck early in the season, while the antler restriction on the second buck encourages selectivity and stewardship. It rewards patience and ethical decision-making while preserving opportunity for youth and first-time hunters.

Additionally, this measure aligns with the interests of the majority of hunters who value seeing a healthier herd, more balanced sex ratios, and improved chances at mature deer over time. It also helps ensure that management decisions prioritize long-term sustainability rather than short-term harvest numbers.

Adopting antler restrictions for the second buck is a reasonable, forward-thinking step that supports wildlife conservation, hunting tradition, and the future of deer hunting in West Virginia. I urge you to support this bill.

I believe this requirement should have been removed years ago. Most states do not have inspections.

I agree with the avoidance of products that were created with force labor, but explain why you chose  electric vehicles? My thought is there are other more impactive products to target, for example: smartphones, laptops, headphones, athletic wear or bedsheets and towels? Are you attempting to limit the purchasing  of electric vehicles?

The setting of bag limits, antler  restrictions should be left to the our DNR, who manage our wildlife. There has been a trend in the past several years to "produce bigger bucks" in this state, by passing the two buck limit. The West Virginia Deer  Association was in the fore front of moment. By lowering the limit, hunting opportunity has been taken for many hunters. But at what cost, trying to emulate what they see on TV from celebrities and influencers? All in the name of bigger bucks that people see harvested by Hunting Celebrities and Hunting Influener's. Who are all making money from pushing this narrative, a false narrative, on how to get bigger bucks in the wild. The hunting celebrities and hunting influeners, along with the West Virginia Deer association are trying to sale this dream as reality, while restricting hunting opportunity, leaving the rest of us to manage the nightmare.

West Virginia currently operates state-sponsored programs encouraging people to move to and work in the state, while simultaneously expanding enforcement mechanisms tied to employment reporting through agencies such as WorkForce West Virginia. These systems intersect directly with SNAP and Medicaid eligibility, placing economically vulnerable residents at increased risk of losing essential benefits due to administrative noncompliance rather than actual refusal to work. Under federal SNAP law (7 U.S.C. § 2015(o)) and West Virginia Medicaid policy, benefit eligibility is already conditioned on work or “community engagement” requirements for certain populations. When employment systems rely on strict response timelines, automated referrals, or employer-reported hiring data, individuals may lose benefits even when jobs are unavailable, inaccessible, or discriminatory in practice. This raises serious due-process concerns when benefits funded by taxpayers are terminated because of procedural failures rather than willful nonparticipation. West Virginia is simultaneously promoting workforce-recruitment and relocation initiatives while failing to ensure adequate worker protections once individuals arrive. Programs encouraging people to move to West Virginia for employment do not guarantee that employers will actually hire, retain, or lawfully accommodate workers—especially those in protected classes. This disconnect undermines both economic-development goals and public trust. Food insecurity data underscores the severity of these risks. According to USDA-aligned statistics, approximately one in eight children in West Virginia experience food insecurity, a rate worse than the national average (approximately one in six children nationwide). Loss of SNAP or Medicaid benefits due to administrative barriers or employer noncompliance directly exacerbates this crisis and shifts costs to emergency services, schools, and hospitals. Further, employment discrimination remains a documented concern, particularly for individuals in legally protected categories. West Virginia law expressly protects certified medical cannabis patients from employment discrimination solely based on patient status. W. Va. Code § 16A-15-4(b) prohibits an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against an individual solely because the person is a registered medical cannabis patient, except in narrowly defined safety-sensitive circumstances. When employers exclude applicants based on lawful medical status, individuals are denied income while still being penalized under workforce-participation rules tied to benefits. Additionally, state and federal civil-rights statutes prohibit discrimination based on disability and medical condition, including under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (W. Va. Code § 5-11-9). When workforce systems penalize individuals who cannot secure employment due to unlawful or indirect discrimination, the state risks enabling violations rather than preventing them. HB 4548 expands employer-facing reporting and waiver systems under the Jobs Act, but it does not address the downstream consequences for workers whose public benefits depend on timely employer responses, accurate job postings, and good-faith hiring practices. Without safeguards, these systems can be used to justify benefit terminations while employers receive public funds, tax incentives, or waivers—particularly in cases involving so-called “ghost jobs” or positions advertised but never filled. In summary, West Virginia cannot credibly promote workforce growth while: •Encouraging relocation without ensuring employment protections, •Conditioning food and healthcare access on administrative compliance rather than actual job availability, •Allowing employers to exclude protected classes without accountability, and •Ignoring the documented food-insecurity crisis affecting West Virginia children. Any expansion of workforce-reporting or compliance mechanisms must include due-process protections, anti-discrimination enforcement, and clear separation between employer noncompliance and individual benefit eligibility, or the state risks worsening poverty while subsidizing employers who do not hire West Virginians.

I submit this comment in opposition to HB 4504 as introduced, based on existing statutory authority, current disease conditions acknowledged by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR), and the absence of any demonstrated public health, conservation, or safety benefit tied to the bill’s provisions. HB 4504 proposes to add §20-2-39 to Chapter 20 of the West Virginia Code, requiring the Director of the Division of Natural Resources to promulgate legislative rules governing the harvest of antlered deer, including antler-point restrictions and harvest sequencing. However, the state already possesses broad statutory and regulatory authority over wildlife management, and the bill does not address the most significant documented risks currently associated with white-tailed deer in West Virginia. Under W. Va. Code §20-2-5 and §20-2-6, the state has long delegated authority to manage wildlife resources, establish hunting seasons, bag limits, and disease-related controls. Additionally, existing rules promulgated under W. Va. Code §29A-3-1 et seq. already allow the agency to adopt and amend regulations when justified by conservation or public necessity. HB 4504 therefore does not fill a statutory gap; it duplicates authority that already exists. More critically, the WVDNR has formally acknowledged that chronic wasting disease (CWD) is present in free-ranging white-tailed deer in West Virginia and has been detected since 2002 in at least seven contiguous counties. The agency has further acknowledged that diagnostic testing for CWD is voluntary, limited geographically, and does not constitute a food safety test, and that the “wholesomeness” of free-ranging wild animals for human consumption cannot be guaranteed. These admissions are consistent with existing disease regulations codified in West Virginia Code of State Rules Title 58, Part 69 (the “Disease Rule”), which focus primarily on carcass transport restrictions and baiting prohibitions rather than public health assurances. Despite these documented conditions, HB 4504 does not:

• 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).

Instead, the bill narrows its focus to antler characteristics and harvest order, which have no demonstrated relationship to disease mitigation, food safety, or reduction of human exposure risk. Regulating antler points does not prevent infection, does not reduce environmental contamination, and does not address the acknowledged inability to certify safety of harvested meat. Federal involvement in CWD management, as described by WVDNR, is limited primarily to funding and interstate transport considerations under statutes such as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. §§669–669k, Pittman-Robertson Act), the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§3371–3378), and USDA-APHIS regulations governing interstate movement of captive cervids under 9 C.F.R. Parts 55 and 81. None of these federal frameworks impose enforceable food-safety standards for wild game or require states to prioritize disease mitigation over discretionary harvest rules. As written, HB 4504 shifts wildlife policy further into administrative rulemaking without addressing the state’s own acknowledged risks. It adds regulatory complexity without corresponding public protection and prioritizes harvest mechanics while leaving disease exposure, testing limitations, and fragmented oversight unresolved. For these reasons, HB 4504 does not advance conservation, public health, or responsible governance. If the Legislature intends to act in the public interest, it should first address disease surveillance adequacy, testing standards, inter-agency coordination, and transparency regarding risks already acknowledged by the state, rather than expanding discretionary control over antlered deer harvest criteria. Accordingly, I urge the Legislature to reject HB 4504 as introduced or substantially amend it to address documented disease and public health concerns within the existing statutory framework.

HB 4501 expands interstate practice of dietetics by creating a “compact privilege” that is “equivalent to a license” and allows practice in a “remote state.” Proposed W. Va. Code §30-35A-2.  Dietetics is not a casual service: the bill’s definition includes “nutrition care services, including medical nutrition therapy,” including via telehealth, to “prevent, manage, or treat diseases or medical conditions.” Proposed §30-35A-2.  Because many residents have serious allergies and medical conditions where nutrition guidance can cause harm if wrong, any expansion of multistate practice must prioritize enforceable oversight and clear accountability. While HB 4501 allows a remote state to take adverse action against a compact privilege and issue subpoenas, Proposed §30-35A-7(a),  it also splits discipline between the remote state (privilege) and home state (license), Proposed §30-35A-7(b)-(c),  which can delay or complicate accountability after patient harm. HB 4501 also states that a dietitian practicing under compact privilege cannot be required to meet a remote state’s continuing education requirements; only home-state CE applies. Proposed §30-35A-4(d).  That is a consumer-protection concern, because WV patients should not have weaker safeguards simply because the practitioner is practicing under a compact privilege. Finally, legislators should be careful about public liability narratives: West Virginia’s Constitution provides sovereign immunity (“shall never be made defendant”), W. Va. Const. art. VI, §35,  and claims against the State are handled through separate statutory processes. W. Va. Code §14-2-1.  For these reasons, HB 4501 should not advance without stronger, WV-specific safeguards and clear, fast enforcement mechanisms that protect patients first.

HB 4498 amends the Right to Farm Act by expanding definitions in W. Va. Code § 19-19-2 that determine when land qualifies for agricultural protections, which in turn limits enforcement and nuisance actions under § 19-19-4. At the same time, the state has statutory duties under the Water Pollution Control Act (§ 22-11-1 et seq.) and public health law (§ 16-1-1) to ensure safe water for residents, agriculture, and livestock. Expanding liability protections while water infrastructure remains inadequate shifts the consequences of contamination onto farmers and citizens who do not control upstream pollution. Imposing fines or compliance burdens under these conditions is inconsistent with the state’s own statutory obligations to protect health and water quality.

House Bill 4494 proposes an exemption from nonresident hunting license requirements on private land. However, under W. Va. Code § 20-2-1, the Legislature has declared that wildlife in this state is held in public trust and is subject to regulation for the benefit of all citizens. Because wildlife is not private property, activities involving the taking of wildlife remain a matter of public interest regardless of land ownership. Under W. Va. Code § 20-2-2 and § 20-2-5, the Legislature has established a comprehensive licensing system to regulate who may hunt, when hunting may occur, and under what conditions wildlife may be taken. These provisions are not solely revenue measures; they function as the state’s primary mechanism to ensure compliance with hunting seasons, species protections, and lawful methods of take. A hunting license also serves as the state’s baseline accountability tool. Under W. Va. Code § 20-2-7 and § 20-2-10, violations of hunting laws, including unlawful or negligent taking of wildlife, are enforced through licensing and permitting systems that allow for penalties, revocation, and tracking of repeat violations. Exempting individuals from licensing removes a key enforcement mechanism before harm occurs, shifting regulation from preventative oversight to reactive punishment. Animal welfare and humane practices are implicit in the Legislature’s regulatory authority under W. Va. Code § 20-2-5 and § 20-2-30, which govern lawful methods of hunting and prohibit unlawful or cruel taking of wildlife. A license requirement is the only statewide assurance that individuals are subject to these standards and educated on lawful and humane practices. Private property ownership does not demonstrate competence in firearm safety, species identification, or humane dispatch. Projectiles, wounded animals, and environmental impacts do not stop at property lines, making hunting practices a matter of public safety and ecological concern beyond the landowner. Finally, creating exemptions based on residency or status results in unequal enforcement of laws enacted under W. Va. Code Chapter 20, weakening uniform application of conservation, safety, and animal-welfare standards. For these reasons, exempting individuals from hunting license requirements under HB 4494 conflicts with the public-trust doctrine established in W. Va. Code § 20-2-1, weakens accountability under existing enforcement statutes, and should be reconsidered.

am submitting this comment in opposition to HB 4493 as introduced, or in the alternative to request major amendments, because the bill abolishes a category of private contracting (“wholesaling”) and then authorizes private forfeiture of earnest money and contract cancellation based on an allegation, without any required finding by a court or neutral decisionmaker, creating due-process and property-rights concerns and inviting abuse and litigation.   What HB 4493 does (factual summary) •HB 4493 creates a new article, §30-40A-1 through §30-40A-3, titled “The West Virginia Abolishment of Wholesaling Act.”   •It defines “wholesaling” as entering a contract to purchase real property with the intent to assign/sell/transfer the contractual rights to a third party for consideration, without taking legal title.   •It declares wholesaling “abolished” and “illegal” in West Virginia, with an exception when the purchaser takes legal title before transferring the property.   •It creates remedies that apply “notwithstanding any other provision” in the contract: (a) if a person engages in wholesaling, the seller may cancel before close of escrow and “may retain any earnest money paid” by the wholesaler; (b) if a person engages in wholesaling, the buyer may cancel and “must be refunded all earnest money paid”; (c) a buyer may sue the wholesaler for actual damages plus a civil penalty of 20% of the difference between the contract sale price and the wholesaler’s total consideration from assigning/transferring the rights.   Why I oppose HB 4493 as written (legal and practical problems) •Due process and property deprivation: HB 4493 authorizes loss of property (earnest money) based on the seller’s claim that the other party “engages in wholesaling,” without requiring any prior court determination or administrative finding, even though the WV Constitution protects against deprivation of property without due process of law.   •Federal due process concerns: Because this is state-created authority to deprive someone of money based on alleged conduct, it also raises procedural due-process concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.   •Creates a “self-help” penalty and invites bad-faith cancellations: §30-40A-3(a) effectively incentivizes a seller to label a transaction as “wholesaling,” cancel late in the process, and keep earnest money—then force the buyer to sue to recover it. That is backwards: legal systems normally require neutral process before forfeiture.   •Internal inconsistency that will fuel disputes: The bill simultaneously says the seller may keep earnest money (when the seller cancels) and says the buyer must be refunded all earnest money (when the buyer cancels) if “any person engages in wholesaling.” These competing rules will create escrow fights and litigation, not clarity.   •Overbroad ban instead of targeted consumer protection: West Virginia already regulates real estate practice through the Real Estate License Act, which is explicitly framed around protecting the public from unscrupulous practices, and the state can target fraud and misrepresentation directly rather than banning an entire class of contracts by definition.   •Misalignment with how escrow/earnest money is typically safeguarded: In many regulated contexts, West Virginia law uses structured escrow-release conditions and documentation before funds can be released, reflecting that escrow funds should not be diverted without clear process; HB 4493’s “retain any earnest money” language does not build in comparable safeguards or adjudication.   Public-interest and equity concerns (why this matters to the public) •Even though the money transfer is “private,” the Legislature would be creating a state-backed rule that allows private forfeiture without neutral review, which undermines public trust in WV contracting and increases court burden and consumer harm.   •This approach risks harming lower-income residents and first-time buyers most: earnest money is often the hardest upfront cost to replace; a rule that allows forfeiture based on accusation (rather than proven fraud) will chill lawful participation in housing markets and increase instability. Requested fixes (if the Legislature will not reject HB 4493) •Add a due-process gate: require a court finding (or a clear administrative process with notice and hearing) that prohibited wholesaling occurred before any earnest money can be forfeited or retained under §30-40A-3(a).   •Clarify escrow handling: require escrow agents to hold disputed earnest money until a signed release by both parties or a court order (standard practice in many real estate disputes) instead of automatic “seller may retain.”   •Narrow the definition: replace subjective “intent to assign” with objective triggers (e.g., advertising the contract for assignment, collecting assignment fees without disclosures, repeated assignments within a defined period) so ordinary contract contingencies and lawful transfers are not swept in.   •Regulate disclosures rather than ban: if the concern is deception, require written disclosures to sellers/buyers about assignment, fees, and whether the buyer will take title, plus penalties for misrepresentation—this targets harm directly without creating a blanket ban and due-process problems.   Conclusion HB 4493, as written, does not just “stop wholesaling”—it creates an unconstitutional-risk structure where private parties can be deprived of earnest money without a required neutral determination, contrary to West Virginia’s due-process protections and the Fourteenth Amendment, and it will increase disputes and litigation while failing to precisely target fraud. I urge the Legislature to reject HB 4493 as introduced or amend it to require adjudication, escrow safeguards, and narrow, objective definitions.  

I am writing to express my opposition to any effort to repeal automobile inspection requirements. These inspections exist to ensure that vehicles on our roads are safe and properly maintained. Repealing them would remove an important safeguard that helps prevent accidents caused by faulty brakes, lights, tires, and other critical systems. Vehicle inspections protect not only the driver but everyone on the road. Without them, cars with dangerous defects could remain in operation, putting innocent drivers, passengers, and pedestrians at risk. Rather than cutting inspections, we should focus on making them efficient and effective, not eliminating a program that keeps our roads safer. For the safety of all West Virginians, I urge you to oppose any legislation that would remove automobile inspection requirements. Ensuring vehicles are safe is a basic responsibility that protects lives and prevents unnecessary accidents.

We are facing the most complicated vehicles in the history of the automobile and the least knowledge among the general public of how they work. Most people will drive on bad tires, worn brakes, or dead taillights unless someone tells them. This isn’t just a hazard for the people driving those cars but for everyone else on the road, too. As an automotive engineer, I oppose this bill.

I feel that the wildlife policies should be determined by the biologists and researchers, and based on facts and  not the opinions of directors or legislators

This bill seeks to usurp the authority of the DNR Natural Resources Commission. Wildlife management decisions should not be political fodder for personal agendas. The DNR has a process to seek public opinion from sportsmen and women and ultimately wildlife management decisions should be based on science not personal opinions or agendas. While I applaud the WV house for providing a way to make public comment the majority of sportsmen and women are not engaged politically. As the President of the West Virginia Bowhunters Association we are not in favor of using legislation to enact wildlife management policy. Leave those decisions to trained, educated biologists.

I can't believe this bill is actually making it onto agendas. We don't need to have more kids working in dangerous jobs.   Please do not support this.   Thanks,

I oppose this bill. There is no reason why state taxpayers should be subsidizing the construction of private hotels.

I strongly oppose this bill, which attempts to remove civil service protections from a large swath of West Virginia's public employees.

While I am in full support of apprenticeship programs, and applaud efforts to expand them, I do not believe the interests of our young people would be served by the weakening of child labor laws as this legislation contemplates.  West Virginia has a long long history of strong child labor laws, dating back to 1919.  Let's not rollback these protections for our kids. Bills like HB 4005 that weaken child labor laws is part of a coordinated national effort, supported by out-of-state deep pocketed interests, to undermine worker rights, concentrate corporate power, and weaken government's role of protecting public safety and the most vulnerable. West Virginia lawmakers have the power to stop these multi-state efforts to allow businesses to profit on the backs of children, even in the most dangerous jobs.

HB 4549 assumes that awarding public construction contracts to the “lowest responsible bidder,” combined with the option for project labor agreements, will protect public safety and economic outcomes. However, recent infrastructure and environmental rollbacks have weakened oversight mechanisms that traditionally define what “responsible” means in practice. Without strong, enforceable safety, environmental, and labor oversight, lowest-bid contracting risks prioritizing cost over long-term safety, quality, and community impact. West Virginia law recognizes the state’s duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare (W. Va. Code § 16-1-1), yet reduced regulatory enforcement and limited ethics investigations undermine confidence that contractors will be adequately monitored. If oversight and accountability are insufficient, there is no guarantee that these projects will be safe, that jobs will be sustainable for the local workforce, or that economic benefits will remain in the state. Public procurement policy should ensure not only competitive pricing, but meaningful enforcement, transparency, and ethical accountability to protect workers, communities, and taxpayers.

HB 4524, which prohibits the State of West Virginia from contracting with companies that boycott Israel, raises serious constitutional, economic, and civil-rights concerns that extend far beyond foreign policy. Conditioning public employment, contracting, or economic participation on political or ideological positions constitutes compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination, implicating the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, free exercise of religion, and association (U.S. Const. amend. I; W. Va. Const. art. III, §§ 7, 15). Anti-BDS provisions also create due-process and equal-protection concerns under Article III, § 10 of the West Virginia Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment by enabling vague, overbroad, and discretionary enforcement. Individuals and businesses may face penalties or exclusion not for unlawful conduct, but for perceived political beliefs, religious expression, or cultural identity. This invites religious profiling and xenophobia, particularly against Muslim, Arab, and minority communities whose attire or advocacy may be mischaracterized as political opposition. Courts in multiple states have enjoined or struck down similar anti-BDS contracting laws as unconstitutional, creating foreseeable litigation risk, legal costs, and taxpayer liability. West Virginia should not adopt policies that expose the state to lawsuits and damages while restricting lawful expression on issues such as peace advocacy, environmental protection, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, or foreign policy. Beyond constitutional harm, HB 4524 undermines the state’s economic interests. By imposing ideological barriers on contracting, the bill reduces the pool of eligible businesses, discourages investment, and deters companies from operating in West Virginia. This conflicts with the state’s declared economic-development policy to attract business, promote commerce, and grow revenue (W. Va. Code § 5B-2-1). Fewer contractors mean less competition, higher costs, reduced innovation, and ultimately less funding for public services. Public contracting policy should be neutral, transparent, and based on merit and performance—not political conformity. HB 4524 risks chilling protected speech, eroding public trust, harming economic growth, enabling discriminatory enforcement, and shifting the financial burden of unconstitutional legislation onto taxpayers. For these reasons, this bill should be reconsidered.

HB 4516 raises concerns about eroding public trust, accountability, and transparency in government decision-making. Preventing state agencies or political subdivisions from using public funds to challenge state laws limits oversight and weakens the checks and balances that protect taxpayers. West Virginia law emphasizes transparency and accountability in the use of public funds (W. Va. Code §§ 4-2-4; 12-4-14), and due-process principles require meaningful avenues to address conflicts between state law, constitutional obligations, and federal requirements (W. Va. Const. art. III, § 10; U.S. Const. amend. XIV). Restricting lawful challenges risks shielding flawed policies from review and undermines public confidence in government commitments to openness and responsible governance.

HB 4504 would expand exemptions from hunting and fishing license requirements for certain residents and landowners. I support access to outdoor traditions, but any change in licensing should be paired with continued strong wildlife management and conservation funding, as hunting seasons, bag limits, and population goals are set by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. Policies that change who pays for licenses should ensure they do not undermine conservation efforts that protect wildlife and sustainable harvest opportunities for all West Virginians.

I am concerned that HB 4492 regulates private housing transactions without addressing housing supply, infrastructure, or access. West Virginia law already recognizes affordable housing as a public responsibility (W. Va. Code § 5-26-1), yet this bill shifts the burden onto private property owners rather than investing in development or basic infrastructure. Broad regulation of private property raises due process and takings concerns under Article III, §§ 9–10 of the West Virginia Constitution when less restrictive alternatives exist.

I am concerned that HB 4486 risks encouraging racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement. Many individuals lawfully live and work in the United States under recognized statuses, including Compact of Free Association (COFA) nationals and members of sovereign First Nations, who do not require visas and may legally work, live, and serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Legislation should be narrowly tailored to avoid repeating historical patterns where immigration enforcement was used to justify bias and harm against lawful communities.

In opposition to bill. While I support the idea of children who are soon to be adults having a safe and beneficial learning environment to develop the skills necessary for holding employment when they do become of age, the wording of this bill seems to be focused on relaxing current restrictions on child labor. This bill needs to be restructured to clarify what it intends. It seems to be of two parts, one part encouraging apprentice programs, and one relaxing child labor laws. I suggest dividing the bill into two pieces of legislation so that the encouragement of practical education via apprenticeship and trade schooling can be examined without the negative connotations of child labor. I understand that it is difficult to structure something that allows for one without requiring the other, but I believe in our legislators ability to do so. Children should be learning, not laboring.

Dear Delegate,   I recognize that our state has a workforce problem and that there are many angles we can take to address this, however I don’t think our workforce should be built on the backs of our children. The first part of HB 4005 expands apprenticeship programs and seems appropriate, but I’m very concerned about the reduction in age limitations for workers that is written into the second half of this bill.  I look forward to hearing a healthy discussion in your committee today about the implications of HB 4005 as it relates to the balance of economic/workforce needs and child welfare.   Thank you for your consideration Bekah Aranda, Morgantown