House Bill 4433 should not become law.

Let me be clear at the outset. Human trafficking is real. It is evil. It destroys lives. Those who traffic human beings deserve aggressive prosecution, long prison sentences, and the full force of the law. Nothing in opposing this bill weakens that commitment. In fact, this bill weakens it itself.

HB 4433 does not strengthen our fight against human trafficking. It politicizes it.

At its core, this bill introduces a dangerous and unethical idea into West Virginia law: that a victim’s humanity and right to justice depends on their immigration status. The provision denying restitution to trafficking victims labeled as “illegal aliens” is not only morally wrong, it is counterproductive and cruel. No human being is illegal. No victim of exploitation becomes less worthy of justice because of paperwork or status.

This bill tells traffickers something dangerous: exploit undocumented people, because the law will deny those victims restitution and discourage them from speaking up. That is not justice. That is an incentive structure that benefits criminals.

From a legal standpoint, this legislation is largely redundant. Human trafficking, human smuggling, forced labor, and sexual exploitation are already crimes under comprehensive federal law. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. West Virginia does not govern deportation, lawful presence, or immigration status. Pretending otherwise is not governing. It is political theater.

When state legislators attempt to graft federal immigration enforcement onto state criminal law, they invite constitutional challenges, preemption conflicts, and uneven enforcement. Worse, they distract law enforcement from doing what actually stops trafficking: identifying victims, gaining cooperation, dismantling networks, and prosecuting perpetrators.

Ethically, this bill fails a basic test of justice. Punishment should fall on the guilty, not on the exploited. A legal system that denies restitution to a trafficking victim because of immigration status is not upholding the rule of law. It is abandoning moral responsibility. It confuses border politics with human suffering, and in doing so, it cheapens both.

There is a difference between being tough and being just. This bill chooses toughness as a performance while sacrificing justice in practice. It adds penalties without adding protection. It expands forfeiture without expanding victim services. It uses the language of public safety while undermining the very cooperation law enforcement needs to keep people safe.

West Virginia can and should be uncompromising in prosecuting traffickers. We can protect children. We can punish exploitation. But we must not do so by denying the humanity of victims or turning our criminal code into a vehicle for fear-based politics.

HB 4433 does not make West Virginia safer. It makes justice conditional.

For those reasons, this bill should not become law.

Please vote to stop HB 4433.  Human trafficking must be addressed, but this bill is dangerous.  HB4433 would allow bad actors to use our laws to prosecute people of good conscience.

Under HB 4433 those West Virginian's who helped people find freedom through the Underground Railroad could be prosecuted.  Now it is clear that we must not pass bills that can be used against real patriots, like nurses trying to help victims.

Please use your vote to say NO to HB 4433.  Montani Semper Liberi.

I’m writing in support of HB 4376. This bill is a simple, needed guardrail: elected officials should not be able to appoint their own family members into state or local offices. West Virginians deserve public service that is earned, transparent, and accountable, not handed down through personal ties.

Even when someone is qualified, nepotism creates a shadow of doubt that harms everyone, including hardworking public employees. Clear rules help protect the integrity of our institutions, reduce conflicts of interest, and rebuild public trust.

I urge you to advance HB 4376 and continue strengthening ethics standards in West Virginia so government works for the public, not for insiders.

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

I have four main concerns:

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

Second, §61-14-1(6):

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

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

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

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

Please exercise your compassion and VOTE NO on HB 4433.

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

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

• ~30,090 West Virginians if using 1.7%, or
• ~319 West Virginians if using 0.018%.  

• endocrine care (hormone management for congenital conditions),
• appropriate screening (e.g., anatomy-based cancer screening),
• specialist referrals and coding.

• U.S. Constitution — 14th Amendment (Due Process & Equal Protection): when a law burdens a class of people (including those with congenital sex traits) and interferes with personal medical decision-making, it triggers major equal protection and liberty concerns.
• West Virginia Constitution — Article III (Due Process / inherent rights): West Virginia’s Bill of Rights includes protections for liberty and due process that courts treat as containing equal-protection principles.  

(3) A verified certificate of mental health examination by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist physician, psychologist, licensed professional counselor practicing in compliance with §30-31-1 et seq. of this code, licensed independent clinical social worker practicing in compliance with the provisions of §30-30-1 et seq. of this code, an advanced nurse practitioner with psychiatric certification practicing in compliance with §30-7-1 et seq. of this code, or a physician assistant practicing in compliance with §30-3E-1 et seq. of this code

*foot doctor (typically)

1. HB 4750 is NOT supported by the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and is entirely unnecessary.
   • There is also no empirical evidence that the presence or distance restrictions make anyone safer. In fact, they do the opposite.
     • In its decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals not only agreed but went on to declare that adding geographic exclusionary zones, among others, made Michigan’s SORNA, post its 2006 and 2011 amendments, punishment and therefore could not be applied retroactively (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Moreover, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geographic exclusionary zones and in-person reporting requirements constitute onerous restrictions unsupported by evolving research and best practices on recidivism, rehabilitation, and community safety. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Additionally, Human Services professionals and nationally recognized experts on sexual abuse and sex offender legislation agree that distance restrictions are counterproductive. According to Gina Puls (Puls, 2016), residency restrictions, which prevent sex offenders from living within an established distance of various places where children gather, have created enormous hardship for released sex offenders as they attempt to reintegrate into society, and the effectiveness of these laws has increasingly been rejected.

1. • Establishing presence or distance restrictions expands the use and impact of registry law in West Virginia. It invites litigation if passed, as it shifts the WV registry from a “civil regulatory schema” to a “criminal punishment schema,” which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.” (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a “civil regulatory schema” into a “criminal punishment schema,” which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
   • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan’s SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
2. HB 4750 violates the Void for Vagueness Doctrine.
   • It would be difficult for registrants to know with certainty how to comply with this language. It would not likely survive a “void for vagueness” challenge. The “void-for-vagueness doctrine” requires first that a statute must be clear enough for those subject to it to understand what conduct would render them liable to its penalties. The standard for determining whether a statute provides fair notice is “whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the statute’s] meaning.” (Galloway v. State, 781 A.2d 851)
   • With the current language, “… prohibited from residing within 3,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school, a childcare facility, a residential child-caring agency, a children’s group care home or any playground, ballpark or other recreational facility” registrants would have to guess at what constitutes “reside”; does this include periods of time visiting friends or family, for how many days, is this a permanent residency or temporary, and does it matter, etc? How to measure 3,000 feet; is that door-to-door, property line to property line, etc? What constitutes a “playground, ballpark, or other recreational facility”? Is the GoMart ballpark in Charleston, WV, a restricted park? Does their neighbor’s backyard swingset and monkey bars constitute a playground, etc?
   • With the current language, each jurisdiction would have to unilaterally decide what constitutes “reside,” “3,000 feet”, and “playground, ballpark, or other recreational facility.” This interpretation violates the second criterion that criminal statutes provide “legally fixed standards and adequate guidelines for police, judicial officers, triers of fact and others whose obligation it is to enforce, apply and administer the penal laws.” (Bowers v. State, 389 A.2d 341)
   • With the current language, there are no provisions addressing pre-existing residences, no provisions for the financial implications of forcing registrants and their families from their privately-owned property should it fall into the 3,000-foot restriction, and no provisions for what should happen if there is a pre-existing residence and a new restricted facility is open/built thereafter.
3. HB 4750 violates the Void for Overbroad Doctrine.
   • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
   • HB 4750 applies to “All registrants,” not just those whose offense involved a minor or who are on parole, probation, or supervised release.

Works Cited

I am a Communities In Schools Site Coordinator in public school.   We have many children in our schools, and it is our job to assist our students in overcoming barriers to learning.   Part of that includes coordinating access to basic needs such as food, clothing, community linkages, etc.     To the best of my knowledge, it is not our job to determine the immigration status of parents prior to enrolling their children.  So if we assist a a student’s parent who happens to be illegal, are we going to jail for 10 years?  And if so, by what method will a parent’s immigration status officially be disclosed us?   It is not my area of expertise to review such documentation.    Once a child is enrolled, we are expected to do our job indiscriminately.  This may include providing food, linkages to free charitable resources such as healthcare, etc. Please consider public schools and all human services professionals whose ethical obligation it is to help the people presented to us before voting on this bill. Thank You!