Public Comments
2026 Regular Session HB5669 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kim Legg on March 4, 2026 14:07
I would like to know why this did not pass? I have been a social worker for 30 years the last 21 working in the school system. I currently oversee our school choice program in our county. I have no issue with school choice, this is not about school choice it is about keeping our children safe. I have talked with hundreds of homeschool families who do an amazing job educating their children in a safe nurturing environment. I have also had to deal with the aftermath of students who have been isolated, abused, and neglected after being withdrawn to homeschool with no safeguards in place. The amount of students who go to homeschool after a cps report has been made is astonishing. I can not understand how an elected official would vote against keeping children safe. And to the 7 people who did not even have the courtesy to vote, shame on you. We have had 2 young girls die, kids locked in barns, kids found in handcuffs, kids living in absolute deplorable conditions because they did not have an adult watching out for them. I beg you to reconsider your decision and protect the children in West Virginia.
2026 Regular Session HB5669 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stacy Bradley on March 4, 2026 13:37
I would like to know the reasoning behind the 40 who voted against the bill? Explain your perspective and please make it make sense to the people of WV. As a school social worker in Kanawha County Schools, I see way too much neglect and abuse that is ignored by CPS. You had the opportunity to make a difference and save lives through legislation and you denied these innocent children their right to be seen and heard by keeping them hidden behind their abusers closed doors.
2026 Regular Session HB5060 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shekinah Apedo, Esq. on March 4, 2026 13:23
Public Comment on HB 5060
Submitted by: Shekinah Apedo, Esq. West Virginia Blockchain FoundationSupport for HB 5060
I appreciate the Legislature’s attention to emerging digital asset policy through HB 5060. The bill reflects an important step toward modernizing West Virginia’s legal and regulatory framework as digital assets, blockchain infrastructure, and decentralized technologies continue to expand globally. Digital asset policy is no longer theoretical. Individuals, businesses, and investors across the United States are actively participating in blockchain-based networks. West Virginia’s willingness to engage with these technologies demonstrates that the state is serious about economic competitiveness and innovation. HB 5060 moves West Virginia in a constructive direction by recognizing the need for clear rules while allowing space for technological development. Thoughtful policy can both protect consumers and signal to builders, entrepreneurs, and investors that West Virginia is open to responsible innovation.Policy Considerations and Suggestions
While the bill represents positive progress, a few considerations may help strengthen its long-term effectiveness.1. Ensure Consumer Protection Without Blocking Access
Digital asset kiosks and other access points should operate transparently and responsibly. However, policy should avoid restrictions that unintentionally block legitimate consumer access to digital assets or discourage lawful businesses from operating in West Virginia. Clear fee disclosure requirements, transaction transparency, and fraud prevention measures can address consumer protection concerns while still maintaining access to digital financial infrastructure.2. Encourage Regulatory Clarity for Businesses
Businesses operating in the digital asset space benefit from clear guidance. Establishing predictable compliance expectations can help legitimate operators enter the market while discouraging bad actors. Clarity in licensing, reporting requirements, and consumer protections will help build a stable regulatory environment.3. Recognize the Broader Digital Infrastructure Opportunity
Digital asset policy should also consider the broader economic ecosystem that accompanies blockchain technology. Industries such as high-performance computing, artificial intelligence infrastructure, data centers, and digital asset mining rely on similar energy, networking, and compute resources. West Virginia’s energy resources, available industrial land, and access to water place the state in a strong position to attract these industries if regulatory frameworks remain balanced and forward-looking.4. Maintain Flexibility as Technology Evolves
Blockchain technology continues to evolve rapidly. Policy frameworks should remain adaptable so that regulations written today do not unintentionally limit future technological development or new use cases. Periodic legislative review or reporting requirements could help ensure that policy keeps pace with innovation.Conclusion
HB 5060 represents an encouraging step toward responsible digital asset policy in West Virginia. By combining consumer protection with regulatory clarity and openness to innovation, the Legislature can position the state as a welcoming environment for emerging technology industries. I appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to continued dialogue on how West Virginia can responsibly embrace the next generation of digital infrastructure.2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Leigh on March 4, 2026 13:11
Edibles would be greatly beneficial to patients in this state. Some patients cannot tolerate vaporization and need more than a low-dose tablet to gain any type of benefit.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: David Bailes on March 4, 2026 12:31
- To Standing Committee on the Judiciary
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Fred Bryan on March 4, 2026 12:13
Need help government assistance pay some debt off
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Pamela Shamblin on March 4, 2026 11:54
I feel that they fought for our country,then our country needs to take care them. They gave Life,Limbs and Mental capacity, Families are sometimes broken because of it.
2026 Regular Session SB1029 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Robin l.Bowden on March 4, 2026 08:55
sb.1029
Please,Please, PASS This Bill ASAP!
Thank You
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dannie Bailey on March 4, 2026 06:32
No comment
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Yvonne Marie Waite on March 4, 2026 06:25
Rather than addressing underlying causes of homelessness in West Virginia . You, the West Virginia Legislature are making it a crime to be homeless on public property and overriding local policy options. How about creating halfway houses, and resources available for the homeless. In jail they cannot recovery. They cannot clean up and work towards getting a job. Another prison bill we can't pay is not the answer. Resources are needed not punishment.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Andrea d clem on March 3, 2026 22:24
SB 137 is literally the anti-Second Look bill and creates the most harm at the greatest financial cost with zero value-add in terms of public safety. I vehemently oppose.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Crysta on March 3, 2026 21:16
To the Members of the Judiciary Committee,
My name is Crysta Black, and I am writing today not just as an advocate for justice reform in West Virginia, but as someone who lives every day with the reality of incarceration affecting my family and many others across our state.
Bills like SB 137 may appear on paper to strengthen accountability by increasing sentences. However, for families like mine, they represent something far deeper — the continued expansion of punishment without addressing the underlying issues that lead people into the justice system in the first place.
Longer sentences do not heal communities. They do not repair harm. And they do not create the conditions necessary for real change.
What families across West Virginia desperately want to see are meaningful investments in rehabilitation, education, mental health care, and personal development programs within our correctional facilities. When individuals are given access to programs that help them understand their actions, develop emotional regulation, learn job skills, and address trauma or addiction, we see real transformation happen.
I have personally witnessed how access to programs and personal growth opportunities can change the trajectory of a person's life. Growth is possible. Accountability is possible. Redemption is possible. But those things require resources, support, and the opportunity for rehabilitation.
Policies that simply extend incarceration without expanding rehabilitative opportunities ultimately cost taxpayers more money while doing little to improve long-term public safety.
Families like mine are not asking for the absence of accountability. We believe deeply in accountability and responsibility. What we are asking for is a justice system that also believes in growth, healing, and the possibility of change.
If our goal as a state is safer communities, then we must focus on policies that reduce recidivism and prepare individuals to return to society as healthier, more stable, and productive members of their communities.
I respectfully urge the committee to reconsider policies that increase incarceration without addressing rehabilitation and instead focus on solutions that strengthen families, support transformation, and build safer communities for all West Virginians.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Crysta Black
West Virginia Advocate for Justice Reform
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kim on March 3, 2026 19:26
West Virginia is one of the most poverty stricken states in the nation with one of the highest rates of residents who receive federal aid. If that aid stops which seems to be more of a reality everyday there will be many more residents who become homeless. Homelessness is not a crime. It never has been. And if you consider yourself a Christian then criminalizing homelessness is not very Christian. As some of you might remember Jesus was homeless when he was born and again when he began his ministry. There’s something in the Bible that speaks to the Son of man having no where to lay his head. When you decide to criminalize homelessness it is committing a sin against God and it is also attempting to treat a symptom of the underlying systemic problem. I urge you to vote against this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: A. Nicely on March 3, 2026 18:18
I oppose House Bill 5319. My faith compels me to love the stranger and the one without shelter.
2026 Regular Session HB4515 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Darla Main on March 3, 2026 17:39
Please, Please, Please get this bill out of the committee to the floor.
Thank you,
Darla Main
2026 Regular Session HB5669 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jonah Stewart on March 3, 2026 15:45
Dear Members of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary:
I am the Director of Programs for the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, the only national organization that advocates for an approach to homeschooling grounded in children’s rights. My research team's core project is maintaining the Homeschooling's Invisible Children database, which has identified over 500 cases of abuse and neglect that have resulted in over 230 fatalities of homeschooled children in the United States.
I write to express our organization's adamant support for Raylee’s Law (HB 5669), and our hope that the West Virginia legislature will finally stop capitulating to extremists and install basic safeguards to prevent more children from irreparable harm. Raylee’s Law would help protect vulnerable homeschooled children without placing any burden on homeschool families who are not under active investigation instigated by a school official.
Most parents homeschool in their children’s best interest, but research shows that there are distinct risk factors for abuse and neglect in homeschool settings. In our database, cases in which victims were known to be pulled from school are significantly more likely to involve prior social service interaction, abuse consistent with torture, and fatality from abuse. This is because gaps in homeschool oversight policies across the country allow abusive caregivers to remove children from school to “homeschool” with the demonstrable motive of covering abuse, not education. We conducted an in-depth analysis of 40 cases in our database in which children were withdrawn from school to be homeschooled after the school reported abuse or expressed concern and found striking patterns of suspicious withdrawal from school escalating into devastation or death. In almost all these cases, isolation-based abuse such as starvation or torture then occurred or intensified, and half of the cases resulted in the fatality of at least one homeschooled child. State-level evidence backs up our assessment, suggesting an association between withdrawal from school and maltreatment risk. A recent study by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate found that more than one in five children aged 7-11 withdrawn from school to be homeschooled were in families that had been subject to at least one accepted social services referral.
Whether the anti-regulation lobby acknowledges it or not, gaps in homeschooling policy do demonstrably harm children — and this harm is preventable. Stopping caregivers under active investigation for abuse from removing children from school registers as common sense to anyone outside of the homeschooling movement. Through a decades-long propaganda campaign, the anti-regulation lobby has successfully drawn a false equivalency between any regulation of homeschooling — no matter how reasonable and non-intrusive to responsible homeschooling families — with a violation of parental rights. This position is not derived from evidence nor a coherent interpretation of constitutional law, but from a theological conviction that parents hold an absolute divine right to control their children. They are transparent about their position and their agenda, and yet legislators have bent to their will time and time again.
The impact of this cowardice can be measured in lost lives. Raylee’s murder sent shockwaves through the state in 2018, and yet the legislature did nothing. Six years later, after more futile attempts to resurrect the bill, another child, Kynnedi Miller, was murdered under nearly identical circumstances. We ask: how many deaths is the legislature willing to tolerate to appease the demands of extremists who value a false notion of liberty over life?
Currently, 49 states allow children to be withdrawn during an active child abuse investigation. While nothing can be done to bring Raylee and Kyneddi back, the legislature has the unique opportunity to reverse West Virginia’s course on homeschooling and become an exemplar for enshrining every kids’ right to safety in state policy.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Daniel Joseph Day on March 3, 2026 14:30
All this bill does is add unnecessary jargon and doesn't actually address any issues that we have in our state. How about he public health crisis of clean running water and proper education for everyone in West Virginia?
2026 Regular Session HB5669 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Melissa McCrady on March 3, 2026 14:11
I ask that this bill NOT be passed as it presently stands, it violates due process and presumes guilt from an accusation alone. The intent of this bill is to stop a parent/guardian from homeschooling if there has been an accusation of neglect or abuse. The accusation is not a verdict. Conducting an investigation should not preclude a parent from beginning their homeschool journey. Especially if these investigations normally take much longer than the 7 day period in which this bill allows. This bill could be used to target homeschool families by school boards who see them as a threat. Do not punish families who wish to homeschool instead of fixing the root problem, the CPS process.
2026 Regular Session SB880 (Judiciary)
Comment by: GONZALO BAEZA on March 3, 2026 14:05
Renaming places arbitrarily and in a manner different from which they are officially recognized by the international community is a symbolic gesture that proves no point, contributes nothing to dialogue or peace in a troubled region, and simply embroils our state in foreign affairs that are handled at the federal level and in accordance to long-standing diplomatic policy, including adherence to the Oslo agreements and the pursuit of a two-state solution. Furthermore, your testimonial gesture to rename the West Bank in official West Virginia government materials purports to speak for all people in the state when it's evident that the majority of our citizens would rather have their elected officials focus on priorities like clean water, education, jobs, or infrastructure. These testimonial bills serve no practical purpose, they waste resources on irrelevant gestures, and this one in particular simply seeks to impose one controversial and disputed point of view in a way that betrays childish zealotry and a serious disconnect with the political climate. Please drop this trivial pursuit for making a religious statement where none is called for. Every moment of our state's extremely short legislative session should be used to tend to the needs of West Virginians instead of theological obsessions and an extreme, obsessive devotion to a foreign nation.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lani Wean on March 3, 2026 13:58
My name is Lani Wean, and I’m a constituent of Kanawha County. I’m deeply concerned about HB5319. Jailing our neighbors for experiencing homelessness is not only a huge expense to our communities, but has shown little to no results in other communities around the country. Since the 90’s, “camping bans” have grown in popularity around the United States, but three decades later, there is still NO empirical evidence that these bans reduce homelessness (National Alliance to End Homelessness).
Additionally, people arrested for being unsheltered are less likely to get the help they need from social services. Interactions with law enforcement break connections with social services providers. Serving time also makes it harder for individuals to maintain stable work and receive important services like healthcare, which is often needed to help stabilize someone’s path to housing.
Bans cost municipalities millions of dollars in judicial and enforcement expenses—valuable funding that could be used to provide affordable housing for all. Providing affordable housing and supplementing similar programming have been shown to offset hospital costs. With nearly half of West Virginians relying on Medicaid, offsetting these kinds of health costs would be hugely beneficial for state funding.
Statewide camping bans are expensive and dangerous for all of us, costing millions and providing limited results. I’m urging you to vote no to any statewide ban. We should use funds to stabilize communities with affordable housing, additional programming, and by protecting local municipalities’ right to choose how they govern. Thank you.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rose Hefner on March 3, 2026 13:09
I am apposed to SB 137. It seems we spend a lot of money housing offenders, rather than the many other needs in WV. We are near the bottom of so many health and education lists. I don't see how locking more people in cages is going to help our people. What if we tried focusing on treatment and prevention options for a change. Locking more and more people up, doesn't seem to be helping us improve very much.
2026 Regular Session HB5060 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Anastasia Dellaccio on March 3, 2026 12:35
March 2, 2026
West Virginia State Capitol
1900 Kanawha Blvd E
Charleston, WV 25305
RE: Statement of Support for HB 5060 – Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) Act
The Digital Chamber (TDC) submits this letter in support of West Virginia’s House Bill 5060. TDC is the world’s oldest and largest blockchain trade association, representing more than 250 member organizations across the full innovation ecosystem, many of whom have employees and users in West Virginia.
In 2025, the Digital Chamber launched the State Network to advocate for thoughtful and transformative digital asset policies in state and local government.
West Virginia’s existing Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (UUNA) Act has long served the community, including, church groups, homeowners’ associations, and civic organizations, enabling them to own property, enter contracts, access liability protections, adopt governance rules, pay taxes, and dissolve or merge.
HB 5060, the proposed DUNA Act, (Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) modernizes this established legal framework and extends these same rights and protections to digital entities operating on blockchain networks. By creating a legal home for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) in West Virginia, SB 1030 would allow these entities to operate in the state with full legal standing, which would create jobs and strengthen the local economy.
Specifically, HB 5060 would: raise the membership threshold to 100 members to ensure meaningful decentralization of decision-making; permit digital associations to engage in profit-making activities when those activities further their nonprofit purpose; provide liability protections for DUNA members; allow associations to operate entirely or partially on chain; and enable transition to an UUNA status if membership falls below 100 members.
The timing is significant. Federal digital asset market structure legislation is advancing and expected to incentivize hundreds of decentralized organizations to reshore to the U.S. Currently, Wyoming is the only state with a Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) framework in place. West Virginia has an opportunity to act now. Passing HB 5060 will create a hub for scalable, technology-native enterprises, create new, high paying, technical jobs, strengthen economic competitiveness, and drive long-term investment in the state’s future.
TDC applauds West Virginia’s legislature for its consideration and stands ready to provide any additional information or testimony. We strongly urge the passage of HB 5060 and are committed to supporting West Virginia’s growth as a leader in the digital economy. TDC is proud to serve as a resource to legislators, stakeholders, and the public as this important legislation moves forward.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Caitlin Corso on March 3, 2026 12:29
Forget the formalities.
This is a truly disgusting bill. People are struggling everyday to keep roofs over their heads and food on their plates and this what you give the people. Homelessness is not a choice, it’s a decision made by the people in power. They make living harder and harder everyday. So much so that they don’t want to see what they’re doing and are banning them from public eye. That way they don’t have to deal with them. Out of sight, out of mind, right? Maybe if the people in power made bills to lift the lower class up, such as Bernie Sanders, there wouldn’t even be a need for this bill. I could keep going about the amount of debt people are in for basic necessities, paying a livable wage, access to healthcare, billionaires that should pay their share, etc. etc.. I’m sure you all already know this, but choose the “sweep it under the rug” route every time. I hope that you can bring any empathy you may have to the forefront and reconsider this bill along with many others, I’m sure.
Thank you and have the day you deserve.
2026 Regular Session HB5669 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jerry Myers on March 3, 2026 11:57
I pulled my child from the school system in order to protect them from bullying and abuse. I strongly oppose HB 5669. If child welfare is actually important, overhaul the CPS and school systems.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Bridget Spiddle on March 3, 2026 11:52
My name is Bridget Spiddle, and I work for the state policies department at the Marijuana Policy Project. We strongly support HB 5260, which would improve medical cannabis patients' lives by allowing edible forms of cannabis to be sold in the medical cannabis program.
HB 5260 would permit plain, geometrically shaped lozenges and gelatin forms, allowing patients to achieve more predictable, long-lasting relief of their symptoms. All but one of the other 40 medical cannabis states already allow the sale of edible medical cannabis to patients in their programs.
Patients find edibles to be especially helpful as an alternative to harmful opioids, to ease their chronic pain and nausea. Sergeant Kitzhaber, a US Air Force veteran who has service-related cancer from handling radioactive material during his military service, has experienced this during his battle with cancer has testified before Idaho courts the help access to edibles has had for him during his cancer journey. He explained that when he traveled to states where edibles are legal, the relief he felt replaced many of his harmful medications, including morphine, hydrocodone, and oxycodone.¹
There are similar stories to his across the nation, where veterans and everyday Americans find immense relief through having the option of edible forms of cannabinoids. State medical programs ensure product safety by enacting regulations that include requirements for child-resistant packaging and labeling. HB 5260 includes child-safe guardrails, including banning bright colors, requiring a standardized symbol to warn the product has cannabis, and prohibiting edibles from resembling any commercial candy. Allowing well-regulated, legally produced edibles avoids driving patients to the unregulated intoxicating hemp and illicit market.
Patients deserve the flexibility to choose the form of medication that best suits their needs. Expanding medication options to allow pre-dosed 10 mg edibles is a needed change for West Virginia’s program. Many patients find edibles to be a discreet and safe method to receive the therapeutic benefits of cannabis. In addition, some West Virginians are unable to tolerate inhaled forms of cannabis due to COPD and other medical conditions.
Patients can already make edibles at home pursuant to W. Va. Code § 16A-3-3 (c), but doing so is time-consuming and is often not realistic for patients with disabilities and serious illnesses. Patients are less likely to get standardized doses of cannabinoids if their edibles are produced in a home kitchen. Regulated, commercially produced products can also have more safeguards to ensure they are not confused with non-cannabis products.
We hope the legislature will expand medical cannabis options for West Virginia patients.
¹https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/03/17/will-idaho-legalize-medical-marijuana-state-lawmakers-open-discussion/
¹https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/03/17/will-idaho-legalize-medical-marijuana-state-lawmakers-open-discussion/
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kellen Hosfeld on March 3, 2026 11:35
This bill criminalizes homelessness without offering an alternative solution. If a person has no home, where are they supposed to sleep? West Virginia jails are already overcrowded, and a homeless person is still homeless after being released from jail. If you want people to stop sleeping on the street, the solution is to provide safe, clean, and affordable housing options for EVERY person.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sara Whitaker on March 3, 2026 11:21
My name is Sara Whitaker, and I am the Criminal Legal Policy Analyst at the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy (WVCBP). There are many reasons to oppose this bill, as detailed in this fact sheet: https://wvpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/SB-137-Overview.pdf.
But I want to share what I’ve seen firsthand. I spent a decade in the Kanawha County Public Defender’s Office, where I represented people charged with felonies, including the offenses contemplated by this bill. But it’s in my work at WVCBP these last four years that I have met and worked with dozens of people who were convicted of these offenses. Some have come home from prison; some are still incarcerated.
It has been eye-opening. If you are a public defender or a police officer or a prosecutor or a judge, you see this person in the immediate aftermath of the harm they committed. And, unless you are a defense attorney who works directly with them, you see very little of the person through the criminal trial process. If the person is convicted and sentenced to prison, the story stops there for those who work in the trial courts.
At the Center, I’ve had the chance to meet people 10, 15, 20, 30 years after they were sentenced. Naturally, these people bear little resemblance to the person they were during the trial or when the arrived in prison. They have gotten older and have grown up. They have taken classes to get earn their GEDs or even a college degrees. They are sober and have completed long-term substance abuse treatment. And they are finding ways within the prison walls to put their rehabilitation into practice.
- One man co-created an arts program at his prison. The art created by him and others has been exhibited around this state, in this capitol building, and even in New York City. Because this artist grew up with folks who had suffered in the foster care system, he and other incarcerated men regularly donated art to fundraisers benefiting children in the system.
- A woman at Lakin turned her prison library job into an opportunity to teach other women how to read. For years, she has crocheted knit hats for babies born in a local hospital.
- A man at Mt. Olive facilitates a curriculum for men who want to become better dads, spouses, siblings. He does this to help men prepare for release – even though his sentence of life without mercy means he will never have that chance.
2026 Regular Session HB5059 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alexandra Schneider on March 3, 2026 11:20
Dear delegate of the House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee:
As a library with a nationally recognized war museum within my main facility, knowing that things will be easier for the Curator and his board with regard to HB5059 and what it helps with is tremendous.
We ask you to help HB5059, Relating to authorizing cultural heritage institutions to claim title to certain property in possession of the cultural heritage institution after providing certain notices, advance in the Judiciary Committee. This bill will benefit West Virginians who loan or donate items to the state’s cultural heritage institutions and will improve the institutions' ability to support historical preservation and education in the state. It has broad support across the state’s libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies.
Issue and Impact:
• West Virginia’s laws pertaining to abandoned property do not adequately address issues faced by donors and staff of libraries, museums, archives, historical societies, etc. Donations or loans to these institutions are distinct from typical abandoned property in that the donation or loan signifies intent for the citizen’s relationship with the organization.
• Libraries, museums, archives, and historical societies often have materials that were gifted long ago and for which they have no ownership records and have items loaned years ago which cannot be returned because they cannot find or contact the lender. Institutions are required to care for these items, but do not own them. These items take up storage space but cannot be conserved, loaned, disposed of (in the case of unwanted gifts), or made accessible to the public (in the case of materials with unique restrictions).
• This bill will benefit citizens who donate or loan materials to cultural heritage institutions (and their descendants) by protecting their ownership rights, facilitating the recovery of lost assets, and helping descendants carry out donors’ final wishes for their property.
• This bill will benefit cultural heritage institutions by allowing them to legally and ethically care for the collections entrusted to them, cutting down on financial waste, streamlining processes, and enabling them to provide the best educational experiences to visitors.
• This bill will benefit the state by helping its cultural heritage institutions eliminate waste of space and resources spent on materials they do not own. It will enable these organizations to better steward their budgets and their collections, so they can better steward the heritage and education of our state. This industry has been hit hard by the economy and dwindling grant-based resources; this bill will help keep them thriving.
• West Virginia is one of only two states lacking laws addressing abandoned property in cultural institutions, according to the Abandoned Property Project from the Society of American Archivists. Each of West Virginia's neighboring states has such a law.
Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB5674 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Annette Yurkovich Brichford on March 3, 2026 10:47
I respectfully urge the House Judiciary Committee to pass this anti-discrimination bill on to be voted for on the floor.
West Virginia should be like a city on the hill, shining like a light in its protection of all its citizens. Banning discrimination based on disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation would complete our Civil Rights Act. It would also be viewed as business-friendly for a state that seeks more extensive economic development and friendly for individuals and families who might wish to move into our state, which is leaking population.
Nearly everyone in West Virginia rightfully bemoans the negative stereotypes and bad reputation we seem to have in the minds of many Americans. Passing this bill is one way to demonstrate we welcome and protect everyone.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Candace james on March 3, 2026 10:32
You cannot arrest your way out of homelessness. HB 5319 punishes people for existing when they have nowhere else to go. That is not policy. It is displacement. Real leadership invests in solutions. I strongly oppose this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Annette Yurkovich Brichford on March 3, 2026 09:47
House rejection of the amendment exempting areas of the state without available shelter beds demonstrates that the intentions behind this bill are punitive. The causes of homelessness are many and complex. Until we have made serious efforts to solve the root causes and to provide housing as well as other assistance to those without permanent shelter, we must not punish those who have nowhere else to sleep but in public spaces.
2026 Regular Session SB880 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dorothy Goodman on March 3, 2026 09:44
I am opposed to senate bill 880. It violates my right to choose what I support and what I do not support. I am deeply concerned about the human rights violations in Palestine. I support the separation of church and state. The names in this bill are biblical names. The true name of the region is Palestine from river to sea. If you vote for this bill you are either not aware of the history of the region or you are influenced heavily by money that supports votes in this country. Lastly and most important your job is to care for the citizens of WV. Is there anything you can spend your time doing for that job? Your people are fleeing this state if they have the means to do so. Your people do not have clean water, health care, adequate education. The children are being removed from their home because of drug use and domestic violence. New industries use our limited resources and do not give back to the people. The professionals who teach and provide medical and health care are so underpaid they often have to leave the state to make a living. Please do your jobs. Please read about the your people. Please read about the history and current events in Palestine. DorothyP Goodman Berkeley County WV
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Melissa Giggenbach on March 3, 2026 09:23
As someone who works in the criminal justice arena, I know first hand that adding years to people's sentences by extending parole eligibility will cost taxpayers a lot of money. Extending parole eligibility will add more burden to an already overburdened prison system which is struggling to house prisoners and provide fully trained correctional officers. Our parole board already does a good job weighing who should be released on parole and we should trust their judgment.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lisa M Hilson on March 3, 2026 08:53
This bill is awful! Instead up upping the sentences, clogging up our system even more there needs to be a rehabilitative services to encourage redemption. Imposing longer sentences will not be a solution but more of a crippling status . Good People make bad choices every day in some way…please rethink this bill and Vote AGAINST IT!!
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lida Shepherd on March 3, 2026 08:45
Enhancing penalties makes us feel like we are doing something to prevent crime, but there isn’t really any evidence to support that doing so has any impact whatsoever. As was heard in House Judiciary committee on March 2nd, violence is often fueled by drugs, alcohol or untreated mental illness. So if we as a state really want to be "tough on crime" then we need to invest in family supports and mental health treatment. SB 137 will cost the taxpayers millions in additional costs to our prisons, while doing nothing to address root causes.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lisa Thompson on March 3, 2026 08:33
We cannot fix homelessness through punishment. We have to address the underlying causes: lack of jobs, accessibility to affordable housing and healthcare.
Homelessness should not be criminalized.
Please take up the issues of the economy, affordable housing and healthcare access, rather than incarcerating people for being down on their luck. Offer real solutions. This is not a true effort to solve a public issue.
Thank you for taking time to read my comment.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: PAUL HUDOCK on March 3, 2026 08:15
Homelessness is a complicated and heartbreaking problem. long-term solutions require heroic efforts to accompany people and give them access to both mental health and addiction, recovery services. This outdoor camping ban appears to be designed to force this population to relocate to other states. this is a heartless solution to a difficult problem that requires human compassion. his proposed law in my opinion, codifies a hardness of heart- in addition to adding suffering on the homeless population, the rest of us West Virginians will be less empathetic, and more set in the ways of cruelty.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Zachary Butler on March 3, 2026 07:27
Criminalizing homelessness is cruel and unusual punishment. They need our help the most and you want to punish them for existing? This is insane. Housing homeless people would be far cheaper and better for our economy in the long run. Imprisoning people costs the people too much money. This isnt what Jesus would do either, but you all are only Christian when it's convenient for your narrative, not in actual practice.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Veronica Witikko on March 3, 2026 07:04
Hello, my name is Veronica Witikko and I am a resident of Morgantown/Monongalia county (1217 Pineview Drive, Morgantown, WV). I am also a social worker with nearly 10 years of experience in the field and a Master's degree. A camping ban will only hurt West Virginia and cost the state more money as a result. WV does not have adequate safe and affordable housing for folks, the job market is the worst I have seen it in 30 years, and we do not have adequate shelter beds across the state. Due to charges made by the federal administration, supportive housing is now greatly limited. Folks are losing their jobs and their health insurance, which in turn leads to loss of medical care, mental health services and substance use treatment. I have been working for the medical system for 2 years and can tell you that a camping ban would increase medical costs to the states. If a patient presents to the emergency department, is admitted and is unhoused, their hospital stay will like be much longer due to the lack of a safe discharge plan. For many people, a discharge to the streets is not safe, and adding a criminal penalty for sleeping outside will only create additional barriers to hospital discharges. A camping ban would increase the length of hospital stays for this reason and likely would cause a great burden on the justice system. Camping bans have been studied across the country and have been found to be ineffective at reducing homelessness. A camping ban will only hurt the state of WV and unhoused folks.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Nathaniel Crites on March 2, 2026 23:32
As someone that is a peer recovery coach and who has struggled with substance use in the past and homelessness. I cannot make this make sense. I work trying to help house people and public housing as well as HUD have time-frames from the time someone gets charged to get them into housing. Then this causes their issues with housing to continue for even longer and creates a cycle thats almost impossible to escape. Then we're gonna put more pressure on an overloaded system like the department of corrections for mental health disorders and being down on your luck. West Virginia we are better than this. I am someone with 7 years in recovery and haven't forgotten the struggles I faced none of this is going to solve homelessness. Come up with real solutions and stop being lazy.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brian Akers on March 2, 2026 22:51
There is absolutely NO evidence that increasing sentencing deters crime. Increasing the minimum time only takes control from judges and parole boards ro give people a chance who have changed their lives, if you want to i crease punishment Increase the maximum amount of time giving judges more discretion when sentencing.
2026 Regular Session SB880 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Fay Stump on March 2, 2026 21:46
Mandating that “West Bank” not be used and the biblical names “Judea” and “Samira” be used instead would be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. We should not be using references to the Bible, the Koran or any religious document as a reason to enact legislation If the historical use of the names is accepted as a logical reason, then should we eliminate the “West” in our state’s name?
If history is important to us, then we should call it “Palestine,” which has been used to name the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River for over 2,500 years, dating back to the 12th century BCE. In the 5th century BCE, Greek historians formally applied “Palestine” to the region. It is the Palestinians who live there. Should they be responsible for any name assigned to the land?
While Israel feels it has a right to the West Bank, the international community widely considers it occupied territory to which they have no legal rights, and settlements there are illegal. The genocide of Palestinians over the past 75 years, and most recently in Gaza, and the apartheid conditions that Israel has imposed on millions is enlightening more of us who have engaged in reading and learning about the history of the region and the current realities.
Is there any among you who has widely read or studied the history of historic Palestine? May I suggest you begin with works by Israeli authors such as The General's Son by Miko Peled or The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe? These documented works would help you to understand why our support of Israel's wishes on the federal and state levels is contrary to the principles of our constitution and democracy.
2026 Regular Session SB880 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cate Johnson on March 2, 2026 21:43
This bill should not be a priority for West Virginia. How often is the region the "West Bank" even used in official state documents? We have real and serious problems in our state, and our legislature should not be wasting time with bills like this, which are just meant to stir up anger and division. The West Bank is the legitimate name for this region and has been for decades. It is not the business of WV state lawmakers to change that. I strongly oppose this bill and ask that our state representatives please focus on the serious issues our citizens face, like clean water, foster care, public education funding, infrastructure, and jobs.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kathleen Porter on March 2, 2026 21:17
Im literally exhausted trying to keep up with all of the horrible things coming out of our government right now. I have to get up and take care of cancer patients tomorrow, but here I am taking time to tell you that keeping the unhoused population from staying in tents when YOU have literally provided them with no better alternatives is absolutely cruel and ridiculous. Less time against trans people, less time letting everyone have machine guns, and more time focus on making this state better. Be better! Do better!
2026 Regular Session HB4381 (Judiciary)
Comment by: David A Weaver on March 2, 2026 21:10
West Virginia Legislature Members,
Re: Senate Bills 533, 561 & House Bills 4381
My name is David Weaver, and I am a retired part time pastor with the United Methodist Church. I served for 20 years as a pastor before retiring in 2025. The churches that I served voted in the spring of 2024 before the general conference that they wanted to disaffiliate if the vote of general conference passed legislation that allowed same sex marriage to be performed in our churches.
In May of 2024 general conference did pass that legislation but immediately following they passed legislation to end disaffiliation. That left us with our only way out of the denomination would be to close our churches and turn all our assets over to the WV Annual Conference and leave them closed for period of time and try to buy back our church buildings.
We do not want to close; we want to disaffiliate from the denomination.
The legislation that is proposed by the West Virginian Legislature would allow us to disaffiliate. Is this correct? If so, we support this legislation and encourage you to vote for and support this legislation. If you have questions or advice for me, please contact.
Sincerely,
David Weaver
2038 S Calhoun Hwy, Grantsville, WV 26147 304-354-6217 home, 681-578-4784 cell
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Blake Collias on March 2, 2026 18:52
Don't criminalize homelessness, instead spend money on services that address the problem such as mental health services.
2026 Regular Session HB5059 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lori Hostuttler on March 2, 2026 18:34
I am the Director of the West Virginia & Regional History Center (WVRHC) at West Virginia University. We preserve over 5000 archival collections and many other historical materials that we make available to the public. We follow best practices for documenting the donation of collections to our archive and honor the wishes or our donors. In the past, the standard for record keeping was very different, so we don’t always have the paperwork that we currently feel is necessary to document donations, transfers, and loans. This bill offers collecting institutions like the WVRHC an opportunity to establish ownership of items in our collection when we don't have documentation. It is not an attempt to transfer private property interests from rightful owners or their heirs. In most cases, the collection materials addressed in the legislation were given to institutions with the purpose of being part of a historical collection as either a loan or donation. They were given with intent, but documentation is lacking. This bill helps to rectify the problem. 48 other states have legislation to address this common issue. I have volunteered and worked in historical organizations for over 25 years. Many have this same problem – stewarding materials they don’t own but are investing time and money in preserving. This bill is a critical step forward in providing a path to establishing ownership for institutions and following professional standards for the administration of our collections. It also benefits citizens who donate or loan materials to cultural heritage institutions (and their descendants) by protecting their ownership rights, facilitating the recovery of lost assets, and helping descendants carry out donors’ final wishes for their property. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you!
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Emily Farrell on March 2, 2026 16:43
As we look at the current cost of incarceration and we hope for rehabilitation the increase in time for eligibility to parole, would be negatively impacting the community in multiple ways the first is the financial strain it would take effect on this state which is already in a major issue with the conditions the prisons are in, multiple doors don’t work in many prisons the power and WiFi go out frequently and mass punishment already occurs within these facilities due to the staffing shortage, so add to increased inmates your housing at over populated facilities and the food cost for an additional ten years the climb of cost would be astronomical for a state in which already can’t not afford the prison system we have. Then to take away a glimpse of hope of release would increase the risk of an inmate not rehabilitating, like inmates many of us do things based off what we would expect as an outcome to then change that expectations, decreases the drive to be productive. We strongly urge you to reconsider these adjustments in the moral , financial aspects of the prison system, I urge you to interview and process time with inmates of these statues prior to making decisions, as I have heard many CO talk about the change someone can make and often do make inside these prison walls in WV this won’t help the recidivism rate, it won’t help crime prevention it will have a negative impact in multiple ways ..
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Bethany McComas on March 2, 2026 15:23
I do not agree with this bill, any offense after this one will give them a life sentence, even if just shoplifting. I am a prison wife, and this bill will ruin lives even the smallest offense.
2026 Regular Session HB4761 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Celeste Trusty, FAMM on March 2, 2026 14:06
Written Testimony of Celeste Trusty
State Legislative Affairs Director, FAMM
Opposition to HB 4761
West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary
March 2, 2026
FAMM would like to thank Chair Akers, Vice-Chair Maynor, Minority Chair Fluharty, Minority Vice-Chair Hansen, and members of the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee of the Judiciary for the opportunity to express our strong opposition to HB 4761, which would drastically increase mandatory minimum sentences of incarceration and time served requirements for people with certain criminal convictions. Mandatory minimum sentences contribute to over-incarceration, separate families, and divert resources from evidence-based strategies that work. Increasing mandatory minimum sentences will undoubtedly cause widespread harm to West Virginians in the absence of efficacy. FAMM opposes HB 4761 and encourages members of the House Committee on the Judiciary to do the same.
FAMM is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates sentencing and prison policies that are individualized and fair, protect public safety, and preserve families. For more than three decades, FAMM has been on the front lines fighting against mandatory minimum sentences - and the data supports the validity of our work. It has been well-known for decades now that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime and are a colossal drain on taxpayer resources, yet HB 4761 relies on these outdated and wasteful concepts in what would surely be an unsuccessful effort to protect public safety.[1]
Mandatory minimum sentences like those established and increased in HB 4761 require judges to impose blanket minimum sentences to every person convicted of a specific offense, removing a judge’s ability to consider the specifics of the situation, individual victims, the individual person they are sentencing, or any mitigating factors. What results all too often is a sentence that is counterproductive, wildly expensive, and ineffective at protecting the public from the very concern the legislature is trying to address.[2] FAMM understands the valid concern with the impact of crime on communities across the state and our country. However, increasing mandatory minimum sentences is simply not the answer. This is supported by more than three decades of evidence showing that mandatory minimum sentences do not make our communities any safer.
HB 4761 would double the length of the mandatory minimum term of incarceration for second degree murder, increasing the sentence to 20 - 40 years from the current 10 - 40 years, and would increase the mandatory minimum sentence for people convicted of first-degree murder after July 1, 2026, from 15 years to 15 years prior to parole eligibility. HB 4761 would also establish mandatory minimum sentences of 10 - 40 years and 5 - 20 years for attempted first- and second-degree murder, respectively.
Incarceration is meant as a form of punishment and to protect the public, but also meant to rehabilitate, educate, and support people as they prepare for a successful return to the community. FAMM believes that people should have meaningful opportunities to be released back into the community when their continued incarceration no longer serves any public benefit. HB 4761 runs counter to that goal and would increase incarceration lengths and costs for every person convicted of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter or serving life sentences, regardless of their individual rehabilitation and readiness to return to the community.
West Virginians pay an average of nearly $50,000 each year to incarcerate each person, and those costs can drastically increase as people age and require increased medical care while serving longer prison sentences.[3] Legislating blanket increases on minimum terms of incarceration based on conviction or sentence will undoubtedly increase the fiscal burden on West Virginia’s taxpayers without tangible benefit to the safety of their communities. Additionally, the provisions included in HB 4761 ignore the role of the Parole Board who makes individualized decisions about readiness for release from incarceration, and whose decisions on granting release show that the populations of people targeted with increased punishment by this bill generally have much lower recidivism rates when released on parole.[4]
FAMM encourages the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary to reject HB 4761 and instead focus on implementing evidence-based policies that serve to support West Virginia’s communities and protect public safety. Thank you for considering our feedback, and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions at ctrusty@famm.org or 267.559.0195.
[1] FAMM Policy Briefing: Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, January 2024. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/Mandatory-Minimum-Briefing-Paper-Final.pdf
[2] The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, April 2021. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/The-Case-against-Mandatory-Minimum-Sentences.pdf
[3] DCR Annual Report FY 2024, p. 43; DCR Annual Report FY 2025, p.43. Total prison spending increased from $271.7 million in FY 2024 to $348.2 million in FY 2025.
[4] DCR Recidivism Report, July 2024, p.2. DCR defines recidivism as anyone coming back to prison within 3 years – regardless of whether it was a new crime committed or a parole violation (e.g., a missed appointment). In other words, recidivism does not necessarily indicate a new criminal offense.
2026 Regular Session HB4758 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Celeste Trusty, FAMM on March 2, 2026 14:04
Written Testimony of Celeste Trusty
State Legislative Affairs Director, FAMM
Opposition to HB 4758
West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary
March 2, 2026
FAMM would like to thank Chair Akers, Vice-Chair Maynor, Minority Chair Fluharty, Minority Vice-Chair Hansen, and members of the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee of the Judiciary for the opportunity to express our strong opposition to HB 4758, which would drastically increase mandatory minimum sentences of incarceration and time served requirements for people with certain criminal convictions. Mandatory minimum sentences contribute to over-incarceration, separate families, and divert resources from evidence-based strategies that work. Increasing mandatory minimum sentences will undoubtedly cause widespread harm to West Virginians in the absence of efficacy. FAMM opposes HB 4758 and encourages members of the House Committee on the Judiciary to do the same.
FAMM is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates sentencing and prison policies that are individualized and fair, protect public safety, and preserve families. For more than three decades, FAMM has been on the front lines fighting against mandatory minimum sentences - and the data supports the validity of our work. It has been well-known for decades now that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime and are a colossal drain on taxpayer resources, yet HB 4758 relies on these outdated and wasteful concepts in what would surely be an unsuccessful effort to protect public safety.[1]
Mandatory minimum sentences like those established and increased in HB 4758 require judges to impose blanket minimum sentences to every person convicted of a specific offense, removing a judge’s ability to consider the specifics of the situation, individual victims, the individual person they are sentencing, or any mitigating factors. What results all too often is a sentence that is counterproductive, wildly expensive, and ineffective at protecting the public from the very concern the legislature is trying to address. FAMM understands the valid concern with the impact of crime on communities across the state and our country. However, increasing mandatory minimum sentences is simply not the answer. This is supported by more than three decades of evidence showing that mandatory minimum sentences do not make our communities any safer.
HB 4758 would establish a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 to 40 years for attempted murder of the first degree and increase the mandatory minimum sentence for people convicted of first-degree murder on or after July 1, 2026, from 15 to 25 years served prior to parole eligibility.
Incarceration is meant as a form of punishment and to protect the public, but also meant to rehabilitate, educate, and support people as they prepare for a successful return to the community. FAMM believes that people should have meaningful opportunities to be released back into the community when their continued incarceration no longer serves any public benefit. HB 4758 runs counter to that goal and would increase incarceration lengths and costs for every person convicted of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter or serving life sentences, regardless of their individual rehabilitation and readiness to return to the community.
West Virginians pay an average of nearly $50,000 each year to incarcerate each person, and those costs can drastically increase as people age and require increased medical care while serving longer prison sentences.[2] Legislating blanket increases on minimum terms of incarceration based on conviction or sentence will undoubtedly increase the fiscal burden on West Virginia’s taxpayers without tangible benefit to the safety of their communities. Additionally, the provisions included in HB 4758 ignore the role of the Parole Board who makes individualized decisions about readiness for release from incarceration, and whose decisions on granting release show that the populations of people targeted with increased punishment by this bill generally have much lower recidivism rates when released on parole.[3]
FAMM encourages the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary to reject HB 4758 and instead focus on implementing evidence-based policies that serve to support West Virginia’s communities and protect public safety. Thank you for considering our feedback, and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions at ctrusty@famm.org or 267.559.0195.
[1] FAMM Policy Briefing: Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, January 2024. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/Mandatory-Minimum-Briefing-Paper-Final.pdf
[2] DCR Annual Report FY 2024, p. 43; DCR Annual Report FY 2025, p.43. Total prison spending increased from $271.7 million in FY 2024 to $348.2 million in FY 2025.
[3] DCR Recidivism Report, July 2024, p.2. DCR defines recidivism as anyone coming back to prison within 3 years – regardless of whether it was a new crime committed or a parole violation (e.g., a missed appointment). In other words, recidivism does not necessarily indicate a new criminal offense.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Celeste Trusty, FAMM on March 2, 2026 13:59
Written Testimony of Celeste Trusty
State Legislative Affairs Director, FAMM
Opposition to SB 137
West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary
March 2, 2026
FAMM would like to thank Chair Akers, Vice-Chair Maynor, Minority Chair Fluharty, Minority Vice-Chair Hansen, and members of the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee of the Judiciary for the opportunity to express our strong opposition to SB 137, which would drastically increase mandatory minimum sentences of incarceration and time served requirements for people with certain criminal convictions. Mandatory minimum sentences contribute to over-incarceration, separate families, and divert resources from evidence-based strategies that work. Increasing mandatory minimum sentences will undoubtedly cause widespread harm to West Virginians in the absence of efficacy. FAMM opposes SB 137 and encourages members of the House Committee on the Judiciary to do the same.
FAMM is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates sentencing and prison policies that are individualized and fair, protect public safety, and preserve families. For more than three decades, FAMM has been on the front lines fighting against mandatory minimum sentences - and the data supports the validity of our work. It has been well-known for decades now that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime and are a colossal drain on taxpayer resources, yet SB 137 relies on these outdated and wasteful concepts in what would surely be an unsuccessful effort to protect public safety.[1]
Mandatory minimum sentences like those increased in SB 137 require judges to impose blanket minimum sentences to every person convicted of a specific offense, removing a judge’s ability to consider the specifics of the situation, individual victims, the individual person they are sentencing, or any mitigating factors. What results all too often is a sentence that is counterproductive, wildly expensive, and ineffective at protecting the public from the very concern the legislature is trying to address.[2] FAMM understands the valid concern with the impact of crime on communities across the state and our country. However, increasing mandatory minimum sentences is simply not the answer. This is supported by more than three decades of evidence showing that mandatory minimum sentences do not make our communities any safer.
SB 137 would increase the mandatory minimum sentences for second degree murder from 10 to 40 years to 15 to 60 years and from three to 15 years to five to 25 years for voluntary manslaughter. SB 137 would also increase the mandatory minimum time served prior to parole eligibility for people serving life sentences from 10 to 20 years, and from 15 to 25 years for people serving life who have two prior felony convictions. People convicted of first-degree murder after July 1, 2026, would also be required to serve 25 years before parole eligibility, a 10-year increase from the current requirement.
Incarceration is meant as a form of punishment and to protect the public, but also meant to rehabilitate, educate, and support people as they prepare for a successful return to the community. FAMM believes that people should have meaningful opportunities to be released back into the community when their continued incarceration no longer serves any public benefit. SB 137 runs counter to that goal and would increase incarceration lengths and costs for every person convicted of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter or serving life sentences, regardless of their individual rehabilitation and readiness to return to the community.
West Virginians pay an average of nearly $50,000 each year to incarcerate each person, and those costs can drastically increase as people age and require increased medical care while serving longer prison sentences.[3] Legislating blanket increases on minimum terms of incarceration based on conviction or sentence will undoubtedly increase the fiscal burden on West Virginia’s taxpayers without tangible benefit to the safety of their communities. Additionally, the provisions included in SB 137 ignore the role of the Parole Board who makes individualized decisions about readiness for release from incarceration, and whose decisions on granting release show that the populations of people targeted with increased punishment by this bill generally have much lower recidivism rates when released on parole.[4]
FAMM encourages the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary to reject SB 137 and instead focus on implementing evidence-based policies that serve to support West Virginia’s communities and protect public safety. Thank you for considering our feedback, and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions at ctrusty@famm.org or 267.559.0195.
[1] FAMM Policy Briefing: Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, January 2024. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/Mandatory-Minimum-Briefing-Paper-Final.pdf
[2] The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, April 2021. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/The-Case-against-Mandatory-Minimum-Sentences.pdf
[3] DCR Annual Report FY 2024, p. 43; DCR Annual Report FY 2025, p.43. Total prison spending increased from $271.7 million in FY 2024 to $348.2 million in FY 2025.
[4] DCR Recidivism Report, July 2024, p.2. DCR defines recidivism as anyone coming back to prison within 3 years – regardless of whether it was a new crime committed or a parole violation (e.g., a missed appointment). In other words, recidivism does not necessarily indicate a new criminal offense.
2026 Regular Session HB5059 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alexander Bennett on March 2, 2026 10:39
I spoke with the House Judiciary Committee on Friday 2/27/26. I want to thank the Committee for their time, Committee Chairman Akers for allowing me to speak, and for helping to advance our legislation by sponsoring it. I would like to myself available to the Legislative Members on this House Bill as one of the Organizations that has helped to originate it. I serve as Museum Curator at the World Scouting Museum and the Vice President of the West Virginia Association oF Museums. We strongly support and request passage of this House Bill to help West Virginia align with 48 other US States legislation and fill critical gaps that could harm our institutions.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tracie on March 2, 2026 10:30
Hello. I’m a constituent of Monongalia County who is concerned about HB5319. Jailing our neighbors for experiencing homelessness is not only a huge expense to our communities, but has shown little to no results in other communities around the country. "Camping bans” have grown in popularity around the United States, but there is NO empirical evidence to show these bans reduce homelessness (National Alliance to End Homelessness).
People arrested for being unsheltered are less likely to get the help they need from social services. Interactions with law enforcement break existing connections with social services providers. Serving time also makes it harder for individuals to maintain stable work and receive important services like healthcare, which is often needed to help stabilize someone’s path to housing.
Bans cost municipalities millions of dollars in judicial and enforcement expenses—valuable funding that could be used to provide affordable housing. Providing affordable housing and supplementing similar programming have been shown to offset hospital costs. With nearly half of West Virginians relying on Medicaid, offsetting these kinds of health costs would be hugely beneficial for state funding.
Statewide camping bans are expensive and dangerous for all of us, costing millions and providing limited results. Please vote NO on any statewide ban. Funds should be used to stabilize communities with affordable housing and thoughtful, effective programming. Local municipalities’ right to choose how they govern should also be protected.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jodi Link on March 2, 2026 06:10
Like many West Virginians, I oppose SB 137. Increasing sentences may sound tough on crime, but decades of research show that simply keeping people in prison longer does not meaningfully reduce crime rates or deter future offenses. This bill would significantly lengthen prison sentences and expand mandatory minimum penalties in West Virginia without clear evidence that doing so will improve public safety
West Virginia already faces significant challenges within its corrections system, including overcrowding, staffing shortages, and rising costs. SB 137 would place additional strain on taxpayers by increasing long-term incarceration expenses, including housing, medical care, and supervision, while offering little to no return in terms of safer communities. Every dollar spent on unnecessary prison expansion is a dollar not invested in strategies that are proven to reduce recidivism and prevent crime in the first place.
Evidence-based alternatives such as substance use treatment, mental health services, career training, and structured reentry programs consistently demonstrate stronger public safety outcomes than sentence enhancements. Many individuals in the criminal legal system struggle with addiction, trauma, and economic instability. Addressing these root causes is far more effective than extending prison stays.
Additionally, longer mandatory sentences limit judicial discretion and prevent courts from considering the unique circumstances of each case. This “one-size-fits-all” approach can produce unjust outcomes while failing to distinguish between individuals who pose a serious risk and those who would benefit more from supervision and treatment.
Public safety should be guided by data, fiscal responsibility, and fairness. I urge lawmakers to reject SB 137 and instead prioritize policies that strengthen communities, support victims, and make smart, evidence-based investments in safety.
2026 Regular Session HB4056 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rebecca Byrd on March 2, 2026 04:33
I, as a life long West Virginia resident am not sure I can support this bill. I am thinking of how this could possibly be enforced in some of our poorer counties that have already been wrecked by numerous floods. I am thinking of residents of McDowell county, some of the nicest people you will ever meet. They do not have the means to pay to clean up their flood condemned properties. Would you be enforcing this there? Or is this mean to come after property owners in wealthier counties. We surely care about safety of West Virginians, however I don’t feel the language of this bill accounts for those In financial ruin. People who can’t afford groceries, utilities, and living expenses already. How do you expect these people to pay to have a ruined building removed from their properties? Will the state be providing financial assistance to remedy this problem for these individuals? Or is this really a sneaky way to tax and punish those who can’t afford to clean up their properties? I do not support this bill.
Thank you,
-Rebecca Byrd
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Damon Peyton on March 1, 2026 22:41
I am a West Virginia resident writing in support of legislating recreational cannabis for adults 21 and over. Our state is loosing tax revenue and business opportunities to neighboring states were cannabis is already legal.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ronda Engstrom on March 1, 2026 21:47
I am a professor of Criminology here in West Virginia. My husband and I moved here with our two adult children in 2021 when I attained my teaching position. We are now proud to call West Virginia our home. As a professor of Criminology, I believe this bill does not consider the null and even criminogenic effect of imprisonment in terms of reoffending, particularly long sentences as confirmed in Petrich et al.’s (2021) recent meta-analysis. This bill moves us backward, not forward in our understanding of what works in corrections which is not long sentences but rather restorative programs that holds the offender accountable for their actions while giving the victim voice with the goal of repairing harm.
I am also a volunteer with Prison Fellowship and have been visiting Huttonsville Correctional Center for the past year and a half to assist with Prison fellowship academy which aims to help currently incarcerated individuals to make positive change from a Christ-centered perspective. I know one man, who was convicted of first-degree murder who is now attending Bible college with the hopes of ministering when he returns to his community. If the proposed legislation had been the law at the time of his crime, he would have to wait even longer to return to the community and minister to others. This is true of so many of the men I work with. What I see is men who are not simply remorseful but repentant. They are seeking life change, many with the understanding that this only comes about through faith in Christ. But, for many the hope of freedom, life outside of prison is what drives them to seek this life change. Please do not take away this motivation by lengthening sentences through this legislation.
There are also many cases where men convicted of murder have returned to live productive and service-oriented lives. With this in mind, please understand that housing individuals in prison is expensive. According to DCR’s 2024 Annual Report the average annual cost per person in prison is $35,452. Instead of this bill, which adds penalties after a crime has been committed, I hope that the committee takes up investments that prevent violence – like parent education, treatment foster care, domestic violence initiatives, and trauma-informed practices in our schools. In addition, investment within our correctional facilities for educational, drug rehabilitative services, and trauma-informed treatment will help residents of these facilities be prepared to return to our communities as productive citizens.
Finally, continued and increased volunteer programs like Prison Fellowship within West Virginia prisons should be advocated. As a professor of criminology and volunteer who works with men currently incarcerated, I ask you not to advance this bill.
Reference:
Petrich, D. M., Pratt, T. C., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2021). Custodial sanctions and reoffending: A meta-analytic review. Crime and justice, 50(1), 353-424.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lydia Milnes on March 1, 2026 19:41
This bill would waste millions if not hundreds of millions in tax payer dollars that should be spent fixing roads, providing clean water, and funding schools.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Emmett Pepper on March 1, 2026 13:57
I'm opposed to this bill.
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stephen W Logan on March 1, 2026 13:36
As a retired correctional educator with 11 years of experience at a WV maximum security prison, I urege the rejection of Senate Bill 137, knowing that punishment is only retribution, and not rehabilitation, and at a very high tax-payer cost, increases sentencing from 15 years to 25 years, at an increased tax-payer cost of $484,490 per person. . A poll in March 2025, revealed that 2 out 3 people in the Mountain State support criminal justice reform (including 2 out of 3 Republicans) instead of penalty increases. West Virginians support policies that would allow people to earn time off their prison sentences for their rehabilitation efforts. Three out of four people support a Second Look policy. Reject this bill and put the monetary resources into education or medical care or drug treatment or some other socially responsible organization, NOT in prisons or prison sentencing!
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rachel Radabaugh on March 1, 2026 13:30
To The Standing Committe,
In the spring of 2010 my family entered in to an area of unknown territories. We had never had to face something so devastating. My brother Brent, had been in and out of some trouble due to drugs. Early in his life he was a cute brown curly hair happy boy. Loved family, bikes, match box cars, and model train sets. God gave us a wonderful family. Our entire childhood was spent celebrating every holiday, every birthday, and every weekend with our grandparents, parent, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends. Placing no blame My Brother started hanging with kids to fit in or to be popular. It started with Weed and then turned to Crack cocaine. That cute curly brown hair boy wasnt there any more. Being a mommy's boy my mom was his enabler. Any good mother would never want to see their child in trouble or hurt. Everyone that knows my brother says how sweet, kind, and hes someone that would do anything for anyone if he could. Love's his family and his kids. My brother is now serving a 15 to life sentence with Mercy. He has Graduated from the Bible College in Mt Olive, he's a Mentor, he helped with the Scared Straight Program, he founded the Cared Straight Program in 2016, Co-founded 1st Inmate lead Recovery Unit in DCR in Mt Olive and is still going strong today, he is the Inmate Pastor currently at St Mary's, he's Baptized more men than I can count in the Name of Jesus during the Men of Honor, he has had the honor of praying and being there for other men when they take their final breath here on earth, he's currently enrolled in Barber College in St Mary's, and he has had a clean record while being incarcerated these last 15 years. Are you the same person you were 15 years ago? Have you changed in any way or thing over the last 15 years? God gave my brother Mercy, something to work towards while he's there and will give him the thing to live for when he is released. I have visited my brother in Mt Olive, St Mary's, and Huttonsville. If I remember right the murals or messages on the walls are about 2nd Chances, Hope, personal transformation and rehabilitation. If thats not what the focus is then we need to re-evaluate the transformation and rehabilitation programs not increasing the number of years based on a crime. Thank you. I know you'll decide and do the right thing.
.
2026 Regular Session HB5488 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Donald Proctor on February 28, 2026 19:56
I have family members that rely on service animals and I support this bill. WV should protect these animals while they are performing their duties.
2026 Regular Session HB4758 (Judiciary)
Comment by: sandra moran on February 28, 2026 16:52
My Name is Sandra Moran, Mother of Justin Moran. I have some concerns about House Bill 4758. Extending prison times is not the answer, if any thing, it is only going to be a burden on the State, and the families of the Inmates. I know firsthand because my Son has served seventeen years in several facilities through the WVDOC. He was sentenced to Life with Mercy, and has been denied twice by the Parole board with no good explanation given for their denial. There are young men who are role model inmates being denied a chance in becoming productive members of society. This bill will only increase the elderly population within the prisons leading to very expensive but necessary medical support for the aging population. Also, these inmates will not be wanted in the work force once they are released back into society to old and or to sick to work in any community. This bill is an economic failure for the State, for the citizens of West Virginia. There are no positive benefits for anyone. This bill does not even support what the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was originally put into place for. If anything it will be going in reverse. Please oppose House Bill 4761 or brace for disaster. Respectfully, Sandra Moran
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: sandra moran on February 28, 2026 16:49
My Name is Sandra Moran, Mother of Justin Moran. I have some concerns about House Bill 137. Extending prison times is not the answer, if any thing, it is only going to be a burden on the State, and the families of the Inmates. I know firsthand because my Son has served seventeen years in several facilities through the WVDOC. He was sentenced to Life with Mercy, and has been denied twice by the Parole board with no good explanation given for their denial. There are young men who are role model inmates being denied a chance in becoming productive members of society. This bill will only increase the elderly population within the prisons leading to very expensive but necessary medical support for the aging population. Also, these inmates will not be wanted in the work force once they are released back into society to old and or to sick to work in any community. This bill is an economic failure for the State, for the citizens of West Virginia. There are no positive benefits for anyone. This bill does not even support what the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was originally put into place for. If anything it will be going in reverse. Please oppose House Bill 4761 or brace for disaster. Respectfully, Sandra Moran
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer Hatchell on February 28, 2026 09:09
- Pass this bill please!
2026 Regular Session SB137 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sondra Lambiotte on February 28, 2026 08:59
I agree with this bill. Everything is not black and white. We should be striving for rehabilitation not unlimited incarceration. Our prisons are overcrowded, our prisons are understaffed, our prisons are not working. Each case should be taken separately and those showing remorse, and rehabilitation should have a chance at a productive life outside of prison, especially the ones convicted at a young age.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Judiciary)
Comment by: George W Little on February 28, 2026 07:24
I support House Bill 5260. It is not possible to get edibles currently in a dosage that is small enough to support my medical conditions without also causing unpleasant emotional feelings or highs that I wish to avoid. What I have found that works is the use of gummies which are easy to cut into smaller pieces. A 25 mg gummy cut into eights provides basically a 3.125 mg edible, which is more than sufficient. There are other edibles that can do the same, but none of these are not available in West Virginia. I have made my own edible with what I can purchase, but these don't provide a consistent dosage. My compromised lung condition will not allow me to use inhalation. Like prescriptions, they come in packages that are child proof to the point I found them hard to open. Please support this bill.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kimberly S Rice on February 27, 2026 19:57
We have earned the right to decide for ourselves who assists us with our claims. We are adults I can't believe this is even an issue.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Megan Sickles on February 27, 2026 18:23
I implore you to not pass this bill. This bill would criminalize homelessness in one of the poorest states in America. Experiencing homelessness is not a crime, it is a failure of multiple systems together and/or separately. Homelessness is not just an issue experienced by “addicts” or “bums”. Homelessness is a teenager who escaped a bad situation and has no where to go, a women leaving domestic violence in a resource scarce area, a young adult barely making it on their own earning just above what qualifies them for government assistance and their rent being raised, and more complex examples. This bill will not eradicate homelessness- it will just fill our jails, court systems, and give people a criminal record. Thus, further preventing them from gainful employment and obtaining secure housing.
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Randy L Frame on February 27, 2026 17:57
We need leaglization. It is a great medicine! Helps with depression pain sleep. Also alot are going to neighboring states and buying it anyways.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Torli Bush on February 27, 2026 17:48
This bill needs voted down, we cannot attempt to criminalize the most marginalized around us and claim the teachings of Christ as relevant in the state house.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Frank O'Hara on February 27, 2026 16:01
Lets work on providing and funding homeless, shelters, and working on community based solutions, Let the community and county work for solutions. Taking away their possessions accomplishes nothing, fining them, and places them in jail, only adds to their burdens. Mineral County.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: george heustis on February 27, 2026 15:10
This is a horrible bill that criminalizes being homeless the state isnt even funding housing assistance what if someone is camping and they assume your homeless and get a ticket regardless if you are or arent why does it matter where is our freedom are you gonna ban tents next so people cant purchase them at the store if someone is homeless giving them tickets will just make it harder for them to get out of poverty then you will people keep complaining they are on the streets and cant fix their life when your making it worse by giving people huge tickets they cant afford to pay it only forces people to other areas it doesnt fix anything then if they go to another place with a camping ban they will get another ticket what is your goal a debtors prison what is the crime how is being homeless illegal this is unconstitutional.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lillie Gill-Newton on February 27, 2026 14:23
My name is Lillie Gill-Newton, and I’m a constituent of Monongalia County. I’m deeply concerned about HB5319. Jailing our neighbors for experiencing homelessness is not only a huge expense to our communities, but has shown little to no results in other communities around the country. Since the 90’s, “camping bans” have grown in popularity around the United States, but three decades later, there is still NO empirical evidence that these bans reduce homelessness (National Alliance to End Homelessness).
Additionally, people arrested for being unsheltered are less likely to get the help they need from social services. Interactions with law enforcement break connections with social services providers. Serving time also makes it harder for individuals to maintain stable work and receive important services like healthcare, which is often needed to help stabilize someone’s path to housing.
Bans cost municipalities millions of dollars in judicial and enforcement expenses—valuable funding that could be used to provide affordable housing for all. Providing affordable housing and supplementing similar programming have been shown to offset hospital costs. With nearly half of West Virginians relying on Medicaid, offsetting these kinds of health costs would be hugely beneficial for state funding.
Statewide camping bans are expensive and dangerous for all of us, costing millions and providing limited results. I’m urging you to vote no to any statewide ban. We should use funds to stabilize communities with affordable housing, additional programming, and by protecting local municipalities’ right to choose how they govern.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lillie Gill-Newton on February 27, 2026 14:18
Vote No
2026 Regular Session HB5619 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli flynn on February 27, 2026 12:45
respectfully submit this comment in opposition to House Bill 5619.
HB 5619 mandates the prominent display of “In God We Trust,” the POW/MIA flag, and the Ten Commandments in public buildings, including public schools. While patriotic recognition of veterans and national history is broadly supported, the mandatory display of explicitly religious text in government buildings raises serious constitutional concerns under both the United States Constitution and the West Virginia Constitution.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government action must not endorse or advance a particular religion. In McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses where the purpose was determined to be religious. While Van Orden v. Perry (2005) allowed a monument in a broader historical context, that case involved a passive monument among many secular displays — not a statutory mandate requiring placement in public institutions, including schools.
Public schools receive heightened constitutional scrutiny because students are a captive audience. Courts have consistently recognized that school-sponsored religious messaging raises coercion and endorsement concerns under the Establishment Clause.
Although “In God We Trust” is the official national motto (adopted in 1956), federal courts have generally upheld it as “ceremonial deism” when used in limited, historical contexts (such as on currency). However, mandating its prominent display in all public buildings shifts the analysis from passive historical reference to active government promotion of religious language.
Additionally, the West Virginia Constitution provides strong protections for religious liberty. Article III, Section 7 states that no human authority may interfere with the rights of conscience, and Section 15 prohibits religious discrimination. Mandating the display of specific religious text in public institutions risks alienating citizens of minority faiths and those who adhere to no religion at all.
The historic motto “E pluribus unum” — “Out of many, one” — reflects the constitutional principle of unity among diverse people and beliefs. Government neutrality toward religion protects both believers and nonbelievers alike. The role of the state is not to promote religious doctrine, but to uphold constitutional freedoms for all citizens equally.
For these reasons, HB 5619 raises substantial constitutional concerns and risks costly litigation for the State of West Virginia. I respectfully urge lawmakers to reject this bill and instead uphold the constitutional principle of religious neutrality in public institutions.
2026 Regular Session HB4761 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jason Lister on February 27, 2026 07:56
I oppose bill 4761, 137 as well as 4758. I support second Look sentencing. Second Look sentencing would save our state millions of dollars. Give the people who are rehabilitated and no longer I threat to society a second chance. You could use the money saved on positive programs!
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stella martin on February 27, 2026 07:38
This is absolutely disgusting! Criminalizing homelessness doesn't make the problem go away. Out of sight doesn't mean out of mind. It's solving a problem for nobody except those inconvenienced by a very inconvenient truth. We have a homelessness problem in this state not a sidewalk problem. Not a parks problem. Not a public spaces problem. We have homeless West Virginia's who are sleeping on the streets. You should be trying to solve that problem and figure out a way that every single West Virginia has a roof over their head rather than pushing them out of the way and pushing them further and farther down the totem hole of SES. You all should be ashamed of yourselves!
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Abigail Wiernik on February 26, 2026 22:17
Criminalizing homelessness punishes poverty instead of solving it. If people are camping because they cannot afford housing, the policy failure is ours — not theirs. Public safety and fiscal responsibility are better served by investing in housing, mental health care, and addiction treatment rather than fines and jail.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Anna Saab on February 26, 2026 21:33
My name is Anna Saab, and I’m a constituent of Kanawha County. I’m deeply concerned about HB5319. Jailing our neighbors for experiencing homelessness is not only a huge expense to our communities, but has shown little to no results in other communities around the country. Since the 90’s, “camping bans” have grown in popularity around the United States, but three decades later, there is still NO empirical evidence that these bans reduce homelessness (National Alliance to End Homelessness).
Additionally, people arrested for being unsheltered are less likely to get the help they need from social services. Interactions with law enforcement break connections with social services providers. Serving time also makes it harder for individuals to maintain stable work and receive important services like healthcare, which is often needed to help stabilize someone’s path to housing.
Bans cost municipalities millions of dollars in judicial and enforcement expenses—valuable funding that could be used to provide affordable housing for all. Providing affordable housing and supplementing similar programming have been shown to offset hospital costs. With nearly half of West Virginians relying on Medicaid, offsetting these kinds of health costs would be hugely beneficial for state funding.
Statewide camping bans are expensive and dangerous for all of us, costing millions and providing limited results. I’m urging you to vote no to any statewide ban. We should use funds to stabilize communities with affordable housing, additional programming, and by protecting local municipalities’ right to choose how they govern.
Chief among all the reasons this bill is bad, it shows absolutely zero empathy for anyone experiencing the trauma of homelessness. We all know how hard it is to get by in this economy, let alone surviving on the street while also facing the rising cost of groceries, healthcare, and utilities. This bill does nothing to address the affordability crisis impacting every West Virginian. Do better.
2026 Regular Session HB4150 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Caressa B Stoller on February 26, 2026 21:14
I encourage you to pass this bill. West Virginia Cannabis users should not be denied their Constitutional right to bear arms over their medication. It is Unconstitutional to deny them their right to bear arms. Please send this bill forward to end this injustice.
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Caressa B Stoller on February 26, 2026 21:11
Please help out our State by legalizing this plant for recreational use. It has been proven to be safer than alcohol with almost endless possibilities from the tax benefits. The people of our great State deserve to be able to get a leg up instead of always being behind. You all have the power to make that change. Be that change. Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Unhappy on February 26, 2026 21:01
Please strongly oppose HB 5319. This bill criminalizes camping for unhoused people, who need support services not fines and jail time.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rebecca Byrd on February 26, 2026 20:22
I, Rebecca Byrd, a constituent and resident of Morgantown, WV, find this bill to be offensive and meant to punish West Virginia’s most vulnerable population. Did you know that the majority of homeless persons in West Virginia are veterans? This bill anti American because is this not a free country? What are we doing to make living more affordable in West Virginia for the people? Try making living more affordable and magically there will be fewer homeless persons camping on PUBLIC property. I hope you know that Jesus would be ashamed for anyone who supports this bill. Ask yourself.. wwjd? What would Jesus do? If he saw homeless, would he punish those sleeping on PUBLIC property? I should think the Christian people of West Virginia would already know this answer. But if I have to spell it out for you, no.. Jesus would not fine a homeless person for sleeping on PUBLIC property. And the state of West Virginia shouldn’t either. Let’s show the youth of America how to be decent humans and let’s have some humanity for goodness sake. I do not support taxing, fining, or arresting any fellow human who finds themselves in the incredibly hard situation of having to sleep on PUBLIC property. No one wants to be homeless. Do better.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ashley on February 26, 2026 17:58
You guys are doing EVERYTHING, but offering solutions to the root problem. West Virginia is dying to corporations and technology. Our water is being poisoned and depleting. Wages are stagnant. Rent caps need to be made because there are far too many rentals over 1200. This bill doesn't need passed. We are far too poor and dependent upon BLUE STATES for funding. And the funding we do get doesn't even go to Rent moratoriums or to help the working class. Do not pass this Bill 5319
2026 Regular Session HB5227 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Walter F Hendrick on February 26, 2026 17:43
I love the part of this bill regarding the logos for veteran owned businesses! I very much want to be involved with the logo(s) creation and have even already created one via AI.
Version # 1 | Version # 2
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cristy Anderson on February 26, 2026 16:58
I really don’t know how this solves the problem.
People who drive under the influence are getting a fine of a couple hundred dollars and possibly a couple of days in jail. It is just a misdemeanor, yet this act kills thousands of people every year.
For a homeless person erecting a shelter to be punished the same as someone who made an intentional choice to drive a vehicle and risk killing another person seems to have misplaced priorities.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: John W. Doyle on February 26, 2026 16:56
The problem of homelessness is complicated. A simplistic reaction is not a solution and can even make matters worse. I worked all through the late 1970-2017 period of deinstitutionalization as a mental health worker, Social Security Claims rep and registered nurse. The effects of turning vulnerable people out into the communities was not well handled, and every day I was consumed with making it work.
Nobody wants it "in their back yard", and everybody looks away from the needs of marginalized, compromised and stigmatized members of society. They are on the streets and in the parks because it is the best they could do. Don't disdain or ignore their plight. Don't swap a catchy political sound-bite for a genuine effort to improve lives. Wee must help others who are not Making it as we would like them to. Do not support legislation that makes people illegal. What goes around will come around.
Sincerely, John W. Doyle, Charleston, WV 25302
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lake Sidikman on February 26, 2026 15:46
My name is Lake Sidikman and I am a social worker and the Harm Reduction Program Coordinator at the Women's Health Center of West Virginia. As the Harm Reduction Program Coordinator, I work with a variety of people who need our low-barrier services including many unhoused folks here on Charleston's West Side. HB5913 should be concerning and upsetting to any West Virginian who cares about their neighbors. The truth of the matter is that Charleston simply does not have the shelter capacity to get everyone a bed, which means many people without a home or vehicle have no other option but to sleep outside. That's not a comment on local organizations like the Kanawha Valley Collective, who do an amazing job with the resources they have. If the state truly cared about getting people off the street, they would flood money into the Homeless Continuum of Care and fund low-barrier shelters.
This bill is not about housing, it is about punishment. It is extremely taxing physically, mentally and emotionally to be unhoused. Even one arrest can result in someone losing everything if they don't have a safe place to store their things or someone else to watch over them. This includes clothes, medicine, personal items and, ironically, the money and necessary documents they may have been collecting in order to get off the street. Even if they don't lose these things, requiring people to pay a fine diverts their time and money away from getting a place to live, and many people will be unable to pay, opening them up to further punishment. Getting someone housed, even if they are working with a case manager and proactively engaged, takes time. This bill makes the first offense a warning, the second a fine and the third a fine and possible jail time. But it also states "Each day that a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense." So within one three day span with shelters full, someone could be looking at multiple misdemeanors and jail time simply for trying to rest. It is cruel and ineffective to criminalize sleeping outside.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Daniel Farmer on February 26, 2026 14:49
The very large human being that proposed this evil bill doesn’t look like he’s ever experienced homelessness. He sits in a nice house eating his spaghetti 🍝 wanting to put people in jail that are hungry and down on their luck
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Betty on February 26, 2026 14:43
Yes, I just dropped SSI. That’s all I draw
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brend Elkins on February 26, 2026 13:15
Being homeless got extremely worse when the mental institutions in our area were shut down. They should have been replaced by HOSPITALS to care for the mentally disabled, or other diagnoses related to such. So many of the people out there appear unable to know what is best for them and don't have the knowledge to apply for benefits to help them find a place to live or determine if they are eligible for SSI at the least with SNAP benefits. They should not be punished for "lack of knowledge to enable them to find better life. Social Workers with experience need to hit the roads and streets and hollows to seek out the people who don't have the ability to help themselves and DO IT FOR THEM, not put them in jail to soon return homeless as usual...
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Neryl Gentry on February 26, 2026 13:15
I am a WV resident supporting cannabis legalization for those over 21.
•It would keep the product safer.
•It would be labeled.
•It would provide jobs. It would keep jobs in state.
•It would help keep our farmland .
•Cannabis is extremely helpful for pain, anxiety, itching skin and nausea.
•We should be able to make an educated choice . If alcohol is legal so should cannabis be legal.( I don't drink.)
•EDIBLES
•Edibles would be a healthier alternative for those that do not want to inhale.
Respectfully ,
Neryl Gentry
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Charles Pepper on February 26, 2026 13:05
I support the bill HB 4371 allowing the legal sale of recreational cannabis for adults 21 and over . As neighboring states allow it , WV is losing tax revenues to other states
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sarah Morris on February 26, 2026 12:57
When shelter beds are limited, affordable housing is scarce, and treatment services are overwhelmed, criminal penalties do not solve homelessness, they simply move it or compound it. Fines are unlikely to be paid by someone without income, and repeated citations could result in jail time, which carries long-term consequences and costs taxpayers more.
If this legislation moves forward, I urge lawmakers to include safeguards that ensure enforcement is paired with available shelter options, treatment resources, and clear due process protections. Public safety and human dignity are not competing priorities — we must address both.
West Virginia deserves solutions that are practical, compassionate, and fiscally responsible.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Paige Reiring on February 26, 2026 12:00
This "anti-camping bill" is an attempt to punish the most vulnerable of our communities.
You punish the poor for the place your government put them. Those who can't pay get sent to prison, where they'll provide you with free labor from an overcrowded cellblock.
And if they do pay the fine, what will you do with that money?
Because I know it's not going to strengthen public schools.
It's not going to protecting clean water.
It's not going to combat the opioid crisis.
It's not going to a "just transition" to strengthen our workforce.
It's not going to repairing the failing water infrastructure in the southern coalfields.
So, where exactly is the money going? I have no faith in our statesmen to put those funds to any good use. After all, the opioid settlement funds for Monongalia are being used to fund mass-surveillance Flock cameras in Morgantown and the rest of the county instead of doing anything to improve the material conditions of people's lives.
Until utility costs are down, until food costs are down, until childcare costs are down, until healthcare costs are down--this bill is an insult to every working class citizen in West Virginia.
Maybe you, West Virginia delegate, will be fine if you ignore the suffering of the unhoused and those who are one missed bill away from homelessness themselves, but what a cruel state you leave for those pressed beneath your heel.
2026 Regular Session HB5059 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Elizabeth Simmons on February 26, 2026 11:27
As the Executive Director of the Huntington Museum of Art, our state's largest art museum, I am proud of the work uur Curatorial team does to ensure that all of our collection and paperwork are in compliance with the law, including legal title. As many museums established decades ago find, in the distant past some items were donated without proper paperwork. This bill hopes to give museums a path to legally claim these items rather than holding them in limbo for perpetuity. Please vote in favor of this bill which will make the work of all WV's museums professionals not only easier, but also following national and international standards for best museum practices. Thank you for your consideration.
2026 Regular Session HB5059 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Elizabeth Satterfield on February 26, 2026 11:03
Dear Delegates,
I write to you in full support of HB 5059, which will amend the WV State Code to authorize cultural heritage institutions to claim title to certain property in its possession after providing certain notices. This bill is very important for cultural institutions and museums like Arthurdale Heritage in Preston County, where I serve as the Curator and Director of Education.
Currently, West Virginia is one of only two states that does not have specific abandoned property rules regarding cultural collections. This bill will finally give our state's museums a legal pathway to establish ownership of abandoned collections.
Here at Arthurdale Heritage, we are in the midst of a full inventory of our museum collections, which number more than 6,000 items. Many of these items are not relevant to Arthurdale and were never officially donated to the museum, essentially making them abandoned property. HB 5059 would finally allow our museum to establish procedures to take ownership of these abandoned items as well as permanent loans, undocumented property, and unsolicited collection donations. This is vital for a small museum like Arthurdale which has limited storage space and resources to care for our collections.
Thank you for your work in the Legislature and for considering this bill. If there is anything I can do or provide as a member of West Virginia's museum community, please feel free to reach out.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Satterfield
Curator & Director of Education
Arthurdale Heritage
Arthurdale, WV
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Emma White on February 26, 2026 09:58
HB 5319 means to criminalize homelessness. This is not the answer to such a complex problem such as homelessness. I am not in favor of this bill. I live in Charleston and experience homeless people every day. They are just trying to survive.
Thank you,
Emma White