Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
West Virginia Legislature

87th Legislature

Public Comments

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Debbie Skeens on February 3, 2026 09:16
This should be made into law
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Robert Ring on February 3, 2026 09:13
Our country is so divided. I believe we should have more concern for each other and think about how our actions affect what could happen. I would not wish for any thing to happen to anyone. Hopefully if we had stronger laws and stricter enforcement and more accountability people would think about the seriousness of what might happen to them and others.    
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Olivia Collins on February 3, 2026 09:09
I didn’t know Baylea, but she had a long life ahead until someone intentionally made the careless decision to get behind the wheel and take her life. With this new law I feel as though many people will think before they drink and drive as it may effect not only their life but someone else’s.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Savanah Bailey on February 3, 2026 09:06
I fully support the new law being proposed to strengthen penalties for DUI cases that result in death. Increasing the sentence range from a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 15 years to a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 30 years is a responsible and necessary change. Driving under the influence is a choice, and when that choice costs someone their life, the consequences should reflect the seriousness and permanence of that loss. This law would help hold offenders more accountable, honor victims and their families, and serve as a stronger deterrent to prevent future tragedies.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Hannah Michael on February 3, 2026 09:06
Stricter consequences may save lives, please pass this bill
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Abigail Dotson on February 3, 2026 09:05
Baylea’s law should be applied. She died of a DUI and the girl is most likely getting 3 years when she should be getting 30 to life. That girl killed someone and she’s just getting a small amount of what she should be getting. Baylea’s law would change that and it would punish those who are reckless. Baylea died she lost her life and that girl doesn’t even care. She’ll continue to do it while we continue to mourn the life Baylea had. Baylea will never be a mom so I ask that you implement Bayleas Law.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shawn Rouse on February 3, 2026 09:04
LOVE THIS
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Nancy sue kisamore on February 3, 2026 09:04

Yes there should be a stronger law for DUI ..Longer time served for this offence. Then maybe  . They would think before getting in vichele impaired . Causing accidents.Death or badly hurt . A lot of the time the person driving impaired isn't hurt it's the inacent victim.

Need better laws and stiffer penalties.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mallory Westfall on February 3, 2026 09:01
DUI should have maximum sentence so that everyone is terrified to do it and won’t chance it.
2026 Regular Session HB5059 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 08:58
I oppose HB 5059 because it creates a statutory process that allows cultural heritage institutions to obtain legal title to property without sufficient due-process protections for rightful owners or their heirs. While the bill is framed as an administrative measure, its practical effect is to permanently transfer private property interests based on limited notice and undefined standards of diligence. HB 5059 allows an institution to vest title to property deemed “undocumented,” on indefinite or permanent loan, or treated as an unsolicited donation, even when ownership cannot be conclusively disproven. The bill does not establish a clear or uniform standard for what constitutes a reasonable or exhaustive search for an owner or heirs. Without defined requirements for genealogical research, estate review, or consultation of public and probate records, property may be declared abandoned despite the existence of lawful ownership interests. The notice provisions in HB 5059 are insufficient to satisfy constitutional due-process principles. Notice by certified mail to a last known address, combined with publication or electronic notice, is not reasonably calculated to reach all interested parties, particularly where records are incomplete, outdated, or affected by displacement, migration, or historical loss of documentation. Due process requires meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard before property rights are altered, not merely procedural convenience. The bill also lacks safeguards related to valuation and compensation. HB 5059 does not require independent appraisal or establish a value threshold before title vests. As a result, property with significant monetary or historical value may be transferred without compensation, escrow, or any mechanism for recovery if a rightful owner later comes forward. Once title vests, the bill provides no clear remedy for owners or heirs to reclaim property or proceeds, even if ownership can later be proven. Additionally, the bill provides no independent oversight, audit requirement, or standardized documentation of compliance. This creates inconsistent application across institutions and increases the risk of error or abuse. The absence of a clear statute of limitations for ownership challenges further undermines legal certainty and invites future litigation. HB 5059 lowers longstanding common-law and constitutional protections for property rights in favor of administrative efficiency. Property rights do not disappear because documentation is incomplete, nor should the state facilitate title transfer without rigorous procedural protections. Convenience for institutions is not a sufficient justification to weaken due-process standards. For these reasons, HB 5059 should be rejected or substantially amended to include strict due-diligence requirements, meaningful notice standards, independent appraisal, compensation or escrow provisions, and a clear process for rightful owners to assert claims after vesting.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Austin on February 3, 2026 08:58
Needs be higher and ban them from bars and buying alcohol
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Angela on February 3, 2026 08:53
I agree with this bill. Something needs done about driving under the influence. Maybe they will think twice with harsher punishment.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kim cline on February 3, 2026 08:52
no parents should lose a child. No husband should lose a wife. No friends should lose a friend do more for getting behind the wheel of a car that causes to take a innocent life do more
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer Pettry on February 3, 2026 08:45
I agree there should be tougher laws for DUI causing death.  It ruins both lives. Tougher laws would make people think harder about the consequences. I sincerely pray this law passes.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alyssa Cadle on February 3, 2026 08:45
Pass the bill
2026 Regular Session HB5050 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 08:42
I oppose House Bill 5050. HB 5050 would expand the statutory state convict road force by making all incarcerated individuals, regardless of sex, eligible for forced labor on state highways, roads, quarries, gravel pits, and other road-related maintenance and construction activities. This expansion of forced labor is deeply concerning for multiple reasons. First, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. While the constitutional exception technically permits involuntary labor of incarcerated individuals, it does not authorize the Legislature to impose unsafe work requirements without adequate protections. The bill’s language merely expands who can be compelled to labor on the road force; it does not include baseline safety standards, weather-related work limits, injury protections, or the ability to refuse unsafe work without penalty. These omissions expose incarcerated people to risk unnecessarily. Working on highways and road construction/maintenance is inherently dangerous, involving heavy machinery, motor traffic, uneven terrain, exposure to storms, snow, ice, extreme heat, and other hazardous conditions. The bill contains no provisions addressing when road force work would be prohibited due to unsafe weather or environmental hazards, nor does it require adequate safety gear, rest periods, or compensatory protections. Without these safeguards, injured incarcerated individuals may be left without recourse while the state is shielded from liability. Second, incarcerated people are not free workers; they cannot refuse dangerous work without facing disciplinary consequences, loss of privileges, or extended punishment. Requiring them to perform physically hazardous labor without safety constraints raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns of cruel and unusual punishment and could constitute deliberate indifference to inmate welfare. HB 5050, in its current form, compounds this problem by broadening the pool of people subject to compulsory labor without establishing protective safeguards. If the Legislature intends to authorize expanded inmate labor, it must simultaneously adopt meaningful worker protections, enforceable safety protocols, explicit prohibitions on hazardous weather labor, adequate compensation and injury coverage, and the right to refuse unsafe assignments without penalty. Without these, the bill dangerously expands forced labor into unsafe conditions. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to oppose HB 5050 or substantially amend it to include necessary safety, weather, and worker protections for incarcerated individuals required to work on state highways and related projects.
2026 Regular Session HB4433 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kit McGinnis on February 3, 2026 08:42
NO ON HB4433 We have a right and duty to help neighbors in need regardless of their immigration status. Please stop stigmatizing and harming our immigrant communities and those who care about them. thank you
2026 Regular Session HB5049 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 08:40
I oppose House Bill 5049. HB 5049 authorizes the use of incarcerated individuals for outdoor labor, including cemetery upkeep, without establishing any enforceable safety standards, weather restrictions, or worker protections. While the 13th Amendment permits forced labor as a narrow constitutional exception following conviction, that exception does not relieve the state of its obligation to protect incarcerated people from unsafe, coercive, or punitive conditions beyond the sentence imposed by a court. Cemetery upkeep is inherently physical, outdoor labor that involves uneven terrain, heavy lifting, tools, and exposure to environmental hazards. The bill contains no provisions addressing work during snow, ice, freezing temperatures, extreme heat, or other hazardous weather conditions. Injuries under these conditions are not speculative; they are foreseeable. Incarcerated individuals do not have the same ability as free workers to refuse unsafe labor without consequence, making weather-related exposure coercive by nature. HB 5049 also authorizes wage deductions to reimburse incarceration costs while providing liability protections for government entities. This combination shifts the full risk of injury onto incarcerated people while insulating the state and participating entities from accountability. When forced labor is expanded without corresponding safety requirements, injury protections, or meaningful voluntariness safeguards, it raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns related to cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to inmate safety. The constitutional exception allowing inmate labor does not authorize the Legislature to ignore basic standards of human safety or working conditions. If inmate labor is to be expanded, the law must include clear limitations on work during hazardous weather, enforceable safety protocols, injury compensation protections, and the right to refuse unsafe labor without retaliation. HB 5049 contains none of these safeguards. For these reasons, HB 5049 should be rejected or substantially amended. Authorizing compelled labor without weather constraints or safety standards exposes incarcerated individuals to unnecessary harm and exposes the state to avoidable constitutional and civil-rights liability.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Franklin Farrell on February 3, 2026 08:36
If you drink do not drive.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Willis Hensley on February 3, 2026 08:36
Bailey’s law would give some justice to families who have endured the pain of loosing someone to a drunk driver. I lost my mother when I was 12 years old to a drunk driver in Seth WV. The driver spent 6 months in jail and I have spent the last 39 years without a mother.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kaitlin Hatfield on February 3, 2026 08:33
Fully believe the actions caused by a DUI need to have a higher penalty. Taking or completing alternating someone’s life because of another person’s actions should result in the driver who chose not care about others spending a long time behind bars. West Virginia as a whole allows too many people to get off clean, allowing others to feel that the consequences for their actions are very manageable.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: olivia farley on February 3, 2026 08:33
PASSED 🩵
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Haley Graley on February 3, 2026 08:31
I hope baylea’s law passes
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Abigail scarbrough on February 3, 2026 08:30
I think that this is a great law to add to the system. I would love to see this passed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brittany Mcclanahan on February 3, 2026 08:29
I think this law does need to pass. As if you drink you ARE responsible for what happens. If you are drunk an driving you are risking you an everyone around you. Which is absolutely awful and this should be a law. Take responsibility for your own actions.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alexandra fragale on February 3, 2026 08:26
People should be held accountable for their actions. Too many people have lost their lives to careless people and that needs to change today .
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Maria Huffman on February 3, 2026 08:24
People shouldn’t get away with being drunk and high and taking a life. Maybe this law will deter people from driving under the influence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Nikki Honaker on February 3, 2026 08:23
A life should be worth more than just a couple of years. Punish those to a harsher extent and maybe it will deter others from driving drunk.
2026 Regular Session HB5037 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 08:19
I submit this comment in formal opposition to HB 5037 due to its direct conflict with federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and its harmful impact on democratic participation and community representation in West Virginia. 1. Conflict With the U.S. Constitution and Federal Law HB 5037 attempts to restrict voting rights and eligibility for public office to “natural-born” U.S. citizens. This restriction is unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, and that naturalized citizens possess the same civil and political rights as native-born citizens. States have no authority to create second-class citizenship or impose additional citizenship classifications for voting or officeholding. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes that federal constitutional law overrides any conflicting state law. Citizenship definitions and voting rights protections are federal matters. Any state statute that narrows those rights is void and unenforceable. Additionally, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits voting restrictions that have discriminatory effects, regardless of intent. Excluding naturalized citizens disproportionately burdens immigrant and minority communities and would trigger strict constitutional scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that: •Naturalized citizens enjoy equal political rights •States may regulate election procedures but may not redefine voter eligibility beyond constitutional limits •“Natural-born citizen” requirements apply only where explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as eligibility for the presidency — not state or local offices HB 5037 therefore imposes unconstitutional qualifications for both voters and candidates. ⸻ 2. Unlawful Restrictions on Democratic Participation Beyond constitutional violations, HB 5037 would materially restrict whose voices are heard in West Virginia communities. Naturalized citizens: •Pay taxes •Serve in the workforce •Raise families •Participate in civic, faith-based, and local organizations •Often act as bridges between government and underserved populations By excluding them from voting and public office, this bill would: •Silence entire communities •Reduce civic participation •Prevent communities from electing representatives who understand their lived realities •Distort public policy by removing key perspectives from decision-making Democracy requires equal participation, not selective inclusion. ⸻ 3. Harm to Local Representation and Self-Governance HB 5037 interferes with local self-determination by preventing voters from choosing qualified candidates based on trust, experience, and community service. This bill would: •Bar respected community leaders from running for office solely due to citizenship status •Override voter choice •Create a chilling effect on public engagement and public comment •Undermine confidence in the electoral system Limiting who may participate weakens democracy rather than strengthening it. ⸻ 4. Legal and Financial Risk to the State If enacted, HB 5037 would almost certainly: •Be challenged in federal court •Be enjoined as unconstitutional •Expose West Virginia to costly litigation •Risk federal civil-rights enforcement actions Taxpayers would bear the cost of defending a law that conflicts with settled constitutional principles. ⸻ Conclusion HB 5037 violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, conflicts with the Supremacy Clause, restricts democratic participation, and undermines equal representation. It creates unlawful barriers to civic engagement and silences entire communities of lawful citizens. For these reasons, HB 5037 should be rejected in full.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ariel on February 3, 2026 08:19
I personally think this law should be passed. There have been so many wrecks recently just in my home town from DUI’s. My best friend got ran off the road and ended up in the creek with her daughter in the vehicle. Baylea Bower got killed which has devastated our whole community. Two other girls were driving drunk and hit the guard rail. I have 4 beautiful kids and I’m scared every day that a drunk driver in our town is either gonna run us off the road or hit us head on. You can be the best driver out there but you can’t always predict who is driving under the influence or how they are going to drive near you. My heart goes out to all those who have lost their life because of a drunk driver. I never ever want that to be my family. If we can put a stop to that now then not as many families will be affected by this.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dennis Dye on February 3, 2026 08:19
Pass Baylea’s law
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michelle on February 3, 2026 08:17
I definitely support this law my cousin was killed in a drunk driving accident in 2003.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Julie A Hensley on February 3, 2026 08:16
I have known Baylea since before she was born and has always been part of my family. No family should have to ever go through this because someone chose to get behind the wheel while intoxicated. Our heart is completely shattered and will never be the same. Please pass this bill to prevent this from happening to another family.
2026 Regular Session HB5036 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 08:13
I oppose HB 5036 because it is vague, overbroad, and legally risky, and it invites selective enforcement while creating new litigation exposure for West Virginia.
  1. Federal supremacy already exists; this bill is unnecessary and confusing. The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause already makes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties the supreme law of the land, binding on state judges.  HB 5036 restates a principle in “findings” but then uses sweeping language that can mislead the public into thinking WV can screen out legal authorities it dislikes.
  2. §51-1B-2 is dangerously broad and could conflict with federal law. The bill bans WV adjudicative bodies from giving effect to any “law, rule, code, legal system, or legal doctrine” not enacted by Congress/WV Legislature/WV common law.  That framing raises immediate conflict questions for federally binding authorities explicitly covered by the Supremacy Clause (including treaties).  Even if supporters claim good intent, the text is broad enough to provoke expensive constitutional litigation.
  3. It risks weaponizing “parallel legal system” rhetoric against religious and cultural minorities. The bill’s “parallel or alternative judicial system” language is undefined and paired with a new private lawsuit right and fee-shifting.  That combination encourages ideologically motivated suits and can chill lawful religious/cultural dispute resolution—even though §51-1B-7 gestures at private practice protections.  
  4. It threatens established arbitration law and will trigger preemption fights. HB 5036 makes arbitration/mediation/private adjudication unenforceable under broad conditions and adds a voluntariness rule.  But the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state rules that single out or disfavor arbitration agreements.  Passing a bill that invites arbitration invalidation and fee-driven suits is a direct path to federal preemption litigation.
  5. Family-law and “personal status” language is overreaching and destabilizing. §51-1B-6 bars recognition/enforcement of decisions affecting marriage, custody, support, inheritance, property rights, or personal status if based “in whole or in part” on a non-authorized system.  That “in whole or in part” standard is exceptionally broad and can create uncertainty for families, estates, and interstate/international matters—again inviting lawsuits and inconsistent outcomes.
Bottom line: HB 5036 is not a targeted due-process fix. It’s a broad ideological vehicle that risks constitutional conflict, increases litigation, and can be selectively enforced. West Virginia should reject HB 5036 and instead address any specific due-process or contract-fairness issues through narrow, clearly defined reforms
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sarah Harmon on February 3, 2026 08:12
When someone makes a wreakless decision that takes a life , no amount of jail time will bring that person back, if people wear help accountable for their wreakless decisions then maybe they will think again before they do something to take a life !
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amanda hall on February 3, 2026 08:04
Please pass this bill!! In loving memory of Baylea Nevada Craig Bower!!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tiffany Acord on February 3, 2026 08:02
There should be zero tolerance for DUI. Hopefully this law will show that there is consequences to actions and will deter the next person.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Megan Berry on February 3, 2026 08:01
Every life lost to drunk driving leaves behind families, friends, and communities forever changed. This bill stands for justice, responsibility, and the belief that preventable tragedies should never be accepted as “just the way it is.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Vickey hubbard on February 3, 2026 07:59
D U I is serious! A bad choice made by someone! An innocent life fone way too soon!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ashley robinette on February 3, 2026 07:55
I agree that the current minimum sentence for DUI causing bodily harm or death is not enough.  I support harsher sentencing.
2026 Regular Session HB5032 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 07:55
I am submitting this comment to express strong concern about House Bill 5032 (“Citizens’ Data Center Transparency Act”) in its current form. While transparency around data center operations and surveillance use is an important step, this bill fails to provide meaningful privacy protections for West Virginia residents and should be opposed or amended to include enforceable consumer data privacy rights comparable to modern privacy laws like California’s CCPA/CPRA. Key Issues With HB 5032 as Currently Written
  1. No Individual Data Privacy Rights HB 5032 does not grant individuals rights to: Know what personal data is collected about them Delete personal data held by private entities Opt-out of sale or sharing of personal information • These are foundational privacy protections already implemented in other states.
  2. No Limit on Data Collection or Use The bill focuses on transparency reporting by data centers but does not limit how companies or government agencies collect, share, or use personal information of West Virginia residents.
  3. No Enforcement Mechanism for Individuals Without clear enforcement provisions (private right of action or state agency enforcement), individuals have no practical way to protect their own data or seek remedy for violations.
  4. Narrow Scope on “Surveillance” Only The bill’s language centers on unconstitutional surveillance and federal misuse of data center infrastructure, but fails to address the everyday harms caused by data harvesting, commercialization, profiling, and opaque data practices by private companies.
  5. Missed Opportunity for Comprehensive Privacy Framework Other states have adopted laws that give residents meaningful control over their personal information. West Virginia should not pass a placeholder statute that leaves residents with weaker protections than neighboring states.
Recommended Amendments To ensure West Virginians are protected in the digital age, HB 5032 should be amended to include: Consumer privacy rights, including: • Right to access personal data • Right to delete personal data • Right to opt-out of data sale or sharing • Right to correct inaccurate data Limits on data collection and usage with accountability requirements for companies operating in West Virginia. Enforcement provisions, including: • Private right of action for harmed individuals • Clear enforcement authority for a state agency (e.g., Attorney General) Definitions of personal/data categories aligned with modern privacy standards. These amendments would transform HB 5032 from a limited transparency bill into a comprehensive privacy protection law that truly benefits West Virginians. Conclusion I urge the Committee to: Oppose HB 5032 in its current form, or Amend it substantially to include enforceable consumer privacy protections that give real control and remedy to individuals over their data. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. West Virginians deserve strong privacy rights that protect them from invasive data practices and align with the best privacy laws in the country.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Iris J Crook on February 3, 2026 07:54
If it results in a death, I fill the law should be more stern than even what this bill is trying to get passed, your loved one is dead as a result of negligence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Maizie Blackwell on February 3, 2026 07:54
I don’t have any comments.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kelcie Ellison on February 3, 2026 07:52
Pass Bayleas bill!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Devan Hall on February 3, 2026 07:52
Please pass this law. Bailea deserves to be here!!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Faith Walker on February 3, 2026 07:52
I support this bill in the hopes that it will deter the public from driving under the influence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Gabrielle Roe on February 3, 2026 07:51
This bill should be passed
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kimberly Baldwin on February 3, 2026 07:51
This is a serious issue, especially in circumstances pertaining to death related. People seem to have no concern when driving impaired! Do I believe it takes more / less alcohol intake for individuals; YES most definitely but it does not matter! What about other substances?  The law needs to be refined on many levels! The law needs to be enforced!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tracy Sowers on February 3, 2026 07:50
Please pass this!!!  There needs to be accountability
2026 Regular Session HB5027 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 07:45
I oppose HB 5027 because, despite being framed as a clarification and a protection, it fails to address how eminent domain and related municipal powers are actually used in practice — particularly against property owners who lack political or financial leverage. While the bill claims to limit eminent domain for “private economic development,” it still leaves broad discretion to governments to define “public use.” In real-world application, this discretion allows cities to pressure owners into “voluntary” transfers under the implicit threat of condemnation. A deal made under the shadow of eminent domain is not truly voluntary, even if it is later labeled as negotiated or compensated. We are already seeing this dynamic play out in West Virginia. Large properties — such as malls or stadium-adjacent land — are publicly described as “needed for city resources” or redevelopment, while owners are pressured to donate or sell. When refusal is met with escalating public justification, regulatory pressure, or the looming possibility of condemnation, the outcome may appear legal on paper while remaining coercive in substance. HB 5027 also fails to meaningfully separate eminent domain from blight and nuisance enforcement, which is where many abuses occur. Across cities like Huntington, property owners of abandoned or distressed homes are subjected to demolition proceedings not because the structures are imminently dangerous, but because neighbors or municipalities claim they negatively affect surrounding property values. These actions often result in:
  • Demolition without realistic pathways for rehabilitation
  • Liens placed on owners who lack resources
  • Loss of generational or inherited property
  • Effective dispossession without formal eminent domain proceedings
This bill does not prevent municipalities from using code enforcement as a workaround to achieve the same result as condemnation — removal of unwanted property — without the constitutional scrutiny eminent domain is supposed to require. The two-year “right of repurchase” provision is not an adequate safeguard. Once a property has been taken, demolished, or fundamentally altered, the original owner’s right to repurchase is largely illusory. It also assumes the owner will still have the financial means, legal access, or standing to reclaim what was taken from them. At its core, HB 5027 prioritizes redevelopment efficiency over property rights, while offering symbolic protections that do not reflect how power operates at the local level. Without stricter definitions of public use, stronger prohibitions on economic-development takings, and real limits on coercive blight enforcement, this bill risks reinforcing — not correcting — the very abuses it claims to prevent. Property rights should not depend on whether a building fits a city’s aesthetic goals, economic vision, or redevelopment timeline. Until this bill confronts that reality directly, it should not advance.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Savanna on February 3, 2026 07:40
Life altering decisions should have life altering consequences.
2026 Regular Session HB5023 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 07:37
I strongly oppose House Bill 5023. Local elections should be decided by people who live in the municipality — people who reside there full-time, raise families there, pay local property taxes, and live daily with the consequences of local decisions. HB 5023 weakens this basic democratic principle by allowing non-residents to vote in municipal elections based on fees, taxes, or business interests rather than residency. This bill creates several serious problems: 1. It dilutes the voice of actual residents. Municipal governments exist to serve residents. Allowing non-residents to vote — simply because they work in the area or pay certain fees — shifts political power away from the people who live under the city’s ordinances, policing, zoning, and budget decisions. Residency is the clearest and fairest standard for local representation. 2. It risks violating the spirit of “one person, one vote.” HB 5023 opens the door for individuals to qualify to vote in multiple municipalities based on business ownership or fee payment. Even if unintended, this creates unequal voting power and undermines public trust in election fairness. 3. It invites corporate and financial influence into municipal elections. This bill is especially concerning in a state like West Virginia, where we have repeatedly seen how large corporations can shape local safety, liability, and regulation through special tax structures, exemptions, and ordinances. By tying voting eligibility to the payment of fees or business taxes rather than residency, HB 5023 risks creating a system where economic power becomes political power. Large companies — or owners of large companies — could effectively buy influence in local elections by meeting the bill’s qualifications, even if they do not live in the community. That influence could affect decisions on zoning, environmental enforcement, public safety standards, liability protections, and local ordinances. West Virginians do not need to imagine this risk — we have lived it. The state’s experience with the pharmaceutical industry demonstrated how corporate influence, regulatory gaps, and financial leverage can have devastating consequences for communities when profit outweighs accountability. Municipal governance should not be further exposed to that kind of imbalance. 4. It increases administrative burden and legal risk. County clerks and municipalities would be forced to verify non-resident eligibility, ownership thresholds, and qualifying payments, increasing costs, confusion, and the likelihood of disputes or litigation — all without clear benefit to residents. Local democracy works best when it is simple, transparent, and rooted in residency. HB 5023 moves West Virginia in the opposite direction by allowing money, business interests, or proximity — rather than community membership — to determine who votes. For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to reject House Bill 5023 and uphold the principle that municipal elections should be decided by the people who actually live in those municipalities.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Angela on February 3, 2026 07:36
I believe there needs to be a harsher punishment
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amber Graybeal on February 3, 2026 07:25
I feel that this law should pass for many reasons. Most importantly, for justice for Baylea Craig, but also so that maybe someone will think twice about actions if they stop just getting a slap on the wrist.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Maryann Kinder on February 3, 2026 07:24
PASS THIS BILL PLEASE IT COULD SAVE A LIFE
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cynthia Price on February 3, 2026 07:21

Let's make this happen

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brandi Young on February 3, 2026 07:21
I fully support Baylea's Law! DUI should result in much more than a minimum of 3 years. Innocent lives are being taken and people are getting away with it, with barely any punishment or consequence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Carie Garretson on February 3, 2026 07:17
I stand by this Baylee needs justice..
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rich Rautio on February 3, 2026 07:17
The current sentencing is not adequate and needs to be changed. Manslaughter means death, even if not intentional- mistakes MUST be paid for.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer Rautio on February 3, 2026 07:14
This law needs to be changed because there should be accountability for stealing someone’s life. We all make mistakes but they must be paid for and someone’s life be taken something that the highest price should be paid for. Please consider changing the time for punishment.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Makenzie Mauricio on February 3, 2026 07:14
I believe that this law should 100% be passed. There are too many innocent lives being taken due to DUI’s!!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dylan on February 3, 2026 07:11
I personally love the idea of being more harsh on DUI drivers. In my opinion driving while under the influence is the same as attempted murder. Hopefully this will help stop the people from driving while impaired.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Taylor Jones on February 3, 2026 07:08
PASS!!!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dani on February 3, 2026 07:06
Baylea was one of my longest friends, all the way from elementary school. NO ONE should get behind the wheel while intoxicated & take someone’s life. They deserve the maximum punishment
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: John Hunter on February 3, 2026 07:05
Good bill
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sydney Washington on February 3, 2026 06:55
  1. The guilty part has gotten away with this for far too long !
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Deborah Halstead on February 3, 2026 06:55
We need stronger consequences for the ones who take the lives of innocent victims.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Aliyah Webb on February 3, 2026 06:50
We as a whole need to get better at punishing people for making ignorant mistakes that severely harm others.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer smith on February 3, 2026 06:49
I support this bill
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Joyce Sease on February 3, 2026 06:48
Please approve House Bill 4712 to increase fines and penalties for driving under the influence. Our community and families have lost too many innocents with the offenders getting very little punishment.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Anna Halstead on February 3, 2026 06:45
Those who drink and drive must be held accountable for their actions. This law will provide justice for families like Baylea’s who have lost a loved one over a negligent decision. If you get behind the wheel under the influence, you are choosing to take the chance of taking someone’s life away. That to me speaks volumes of someone. i’m
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kelly Gregory on February 3, 2026 06:45
This should be a law. I understand “accidents” can happen. But this was a choice. Someone may learn or regret and change and that’s great but it doesn’t bring back a dead family member because someone chose to be irresponsible.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brandi on February 3, 2026 06:29
My hope is that you will do the right thing and pass this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Madison P. on February 3, 2026 06:26
I support this bill!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: sydney perdue on February 3, 2026 06:24
please support this bill. the people who’s lives have been lost to the detrimental vices and reckless neglect of others should be worth more than a “hiccup” (3-15yrs of the perpetrators life). people have received much more time for significantly less severe, less fatal, crimes.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Hannah Church on February 3, 2026 06:23
I am here to support Baylee’s law
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Maggie Trent on February 3, 2026 06:22
A DUI resulting in a death deserves more than 3 years minimum to 15 years max. Taking someone’s life due to being reckless is uncalled for.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Carol Pettry on February 3, 2026 06:21
Totally support this bill!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Summer on February 3, 2026 06:20
PASS BAYLEAS LAW!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Christine hood on February 3, 2026 06:16
I have 3 young girls that drive as a mom we need this bill to hopefully slow / Stop driving impaired or even driving drunk as a Mom nothing breaks your heart more than hearing another Mom‘s Baby not being able to come home because of a senseless act
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Helen Hudnall on February 3, 2026 06:09
Pass this law and save some lives from being destroyed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Morgan Hayes on February 3, 2026 06:09
When it comes to a time, where there are multiple deaths due to people being under the influence behind a wheel. It becomes hard not to wonder “Why are people still being DUI behind a wheel?” and “Why hasn’t there been a change?” If people knew the sentence was more than what people had previously knew, even just by doubling it, if people knew they’d get a greater sentence, then surely, so many people wouldn’t get killed by someone under the influence. So many people wouldn’t have found courage to get behind a wheel knowing they aren’t able to drive and kill so many people. It only takes a few drinks, or even one, to kill someone. And people decide to drive, because they aren’t afraid. They aren’t afraid of no consequences. They aren’t worried about the time they’ll spend in a cell. So many people wouldn’t be afraid of driving at night, or even during the day if there is something done about it! Many people, and especially the younger generation, wouldn’t be afraid of getting their licenses or learners, if something finally changes. If people finally take the time to understand the meaning of DUI. Not just Under The Influence, but it also has a meaning where you are possibly killing someone by doing so! So, I deeply hope that something will change. That this new perspective will help people understand the fear coming from a younger generation, and those who drive now. A woman in her 20’s was robbed of her life in 2025. From someone who was careless and under the influence behind a wheel. Because the someone, wasn’t worried about after, just now. Thank you!  
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ashlee Browning on February 3, 2026 06:00
Pass Baylea’s law! Justice should be served!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kelly Shrewsbury on February 3, 2026 05:53
Driving while under the influence of anything is not an accident. It is a choice a person makes. A person can choose to risk their own life and someone else's and it's a coin flip, one where someone might die or be injured. The consequences are lifelong. Driving sober or securing a sober driver isn't difficult. In a day and age where information is in everyone's pocket, readily available, there is no excuse for not knowing that driving drunk or otherwise inebriated can cause an accident. Movies, television series, the news all show regularly what can happen when someone is driving drunk. Nobody has an excuse. But, if the current fines and punishments for doing so stay as they are, offenders are less likely to start taking their lives and the lives of those they share the road with seriously.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Carla haga on February 3, 2026 05:53
Yes I hope the new law passes
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kaitlyn Courtney on February 3, 2026 05:41
DUI’s have never been taken as serious as they should be. I’ve been rear ended by someone who was under the influence & they got 7 days in jail. SEVEN. For totalling a vehicle, causing bodily injury & leaving the scene of the accident with a BAC of over .2. DUI’s are serious. DUIs are real & happen a lot more often than not. I didn’t know Baylea, but she didn’t deserve to lose her life, the one that just got started because someone decided to be careless & not care about other people who also were out on the road!! That could’ve been an innocent CHILD that got killed. An 8 year old. A newborn. A 3 month old.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer Lopez on February 3, 2026 05:39

Please pass this bill, hopefully will make people not want to drink and drive.

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Melanie McClung on February 3, 2026 05:34
PLEASE pass this law!! Hopefully it will make someone think twice before getting behind the wheel under the influence. #justiceforbaylea Her family along with so many others need this law to pass.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Julia on February 3, 2026 05:31
Pass this bill! Not only will it save lives, but change them as well!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Chuck Pettry on February 3, 2026 05:21
This bill is long passed due. The punishment for drinking and driving doesn’t fit the crime in our state and people are getting a slap on the wrist for CHOOSING to put others peoples lives in danger and taking the lives of our citizens. Families are being ruined and lives ended by the selfish choice to drive under the influence because the punishment isn’t seen as “life ending” for the driver, only the victim.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sierra on February 3, 2026 04:43

Pass Bayla’s Law!

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jada Milam on February 3, 2026 04:33
Baylea Craig was taken by a drunk driver that is not gonna get enough time, I know and these laws need changed to ensure in the future people will be punished for what they do. Please hold these people accountable for longer years. Baylea’s Law 💙
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dustin King on February 3, 2026 04:17
West Virginia needs to be out in front. We wonder why we struggle in everything. When archaic laws allow people to make dumb decisions and take someone's life as sweet as Baylea. All your doing is enabling a people to be the worst version of themselves. Set the standard higher. Make West Virginia truly great and pass this law to set the standard to all who consume. Let it be a stark warning.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kayla Christian on February 3, 2026 04:08
Anything causing death should have a big sentence, getting a slap on the wrist doesn’t do any good for these criminals. THEY NEVER LEARN!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Angie Cole on February 3, 2026 03:54
I didn’t know Baylee personally but it’s bothered me so much what happened to her.Something needs to be done.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Janelle Simmons on February 3, 2026 03:52
Baylee was a young girl had a whole life ahead of her just got married thinking about having kids all gone, taken all because someone decided to drive while under the influence
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Torie Whitehair on February 3, 2026 03:50
This bill needs passed to hold those accountable for there actions getting behind the wheel taking others life's! Wish it was more time but this will do for fighting for!...
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Makala Lambert on February 3, 2026 03:40
Pass Baylee’s Law…no life deserves to be taken by a driver who is under the influence. Please help decrease this risk.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: bethani on February 3, 2026 02:55
Baylea’s Law is a highly considerate way to ensure the proper measures are taken to punish those who have irresponsibly took another life due to driving impaired. Her life was taken far too soon over someone else’s negligence and choice to get behind the wheel, knowing they are impaired. Doubling the sentencing, fines, and highly considering this law will help victims of DUI resulting in death and their families to receive the justice they deserve, while also pushing people to think twice before driving while impaired under the use of alcohol or drugs. I highly support this law and hope you will too.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Doug mcfalls jr on February 3, 2026 02:26
I would love to see this law coming in effect. Baylea was my best friend used to hang out with her used to go. go batting all the time she was just an all out great person her mom, her dad and her brother is some of the best people I’ve ever met in. My life Baylea should still be here. She should not have to pay the ultimate price because an under age drunk driver took her life. We love and miss you baylea