Public Comments
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Elroy P. Sailor on February 18, 2026 16:54
Public Comment in Opposition to West Virginia SB 704
Dear Chairman Akers and Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the Frederick Douglass Freedom Alliance, I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to West Virginia Senate Bill 704.
Protecting veterans is a goal we all share. However, SB 704 would restrict veterans’ ability to choose how they pursue their disability claims without addressing the underlying challenges they face navigating a complex benefits system. Many veterans have only one meaningful opportunity to present their claim correctly. Limiting access to assistance increases the risk of delays, errors, and lost benefits.
These restrictions would disproportionately impact rural and minority veterans. In many rural communities, access to in-person Veterans Service Organizations or legal assistance is limited, with long travel distances and appointment backlogs creating barriers to timely help. Minority veterans also face documented disparities in access to services and outcomes within federal systems. Reducing available options will widen these gaps rather than close them.
Nearly identical laws in other states are currently facing First Amendment challenges, including concerns related to veterans’ right to petition their government for redress of grievances. Policies that restrict who veterans may seek help from raise serious constitutional concerns and undermine the principle that veterans should retain control over their own decisions.
Rather than eliminating options, policymakers should focus on safeguards that protect veterans while preserving choice, including contingency-based fee requirements, prohibitions on upfront fees, confirmation that veterans are informed of free resources, restrictions on aggressive solicitation, and strong data protections.
The demand for claims assistance already exceeds the capacity of government agencies and volunteer organizations alone. Reducing options will not solve that problem. It will leave veterans with fewer pathways to obtain the benefits they earned.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Committee to oppose SB 704.
Respectfully submitted,
Troy Rolling
Chairman
Frederick Douglass Freedom Alliance
2026 Regular Session HB5660 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 18, 2026 16:45
I respectfully oppose HB 5660 because it modifies statutory time periods governing concealed carry licensing under West Virginia Code § 61-7-4, and any reduction in review or oversight timelines raises public safety and liability concerns.
1️⃣ West Virginia Already Allows Permitless Carry
West Virginia has allowed permitless (constitutional) carry for adults 21+ since 2016 under reforms to West Virginia Code § 61-7-7.
This means:
- Most adults may already carry without a license.
- The concealed handgun license primarily affects reciprocity with other states and provisional licenses (18–20 year olds).
- Conduct criminal background checks
- Verify mental competency disqualifications
- Confirm eligibility under state and federal law
- Ensure required training compliance
- Issuance errors
- Litigation against counties
- Liability exposure
- Delayed detection of disqualifying records
- Campus carry expansions
- License changes for 18–20 year olds
- Expanded private carry authority
- Counties may face civil litigation.
- Insurance costs may increase.
- Public trust in law enforcement screening may decline.
2026 Regular Session HB5639 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 18, 2026 16:31
HB 5639 alters West Virginia Code § 3-1-9 by continuing and clarifying rules that assign political party executive committee seats based on gender and dictates how vacancies for those sex-designated positions are to be filled. Because these gender quotas are written into state law, they potentially limit voter choice and prioritization of candidates based on voter support, rather than individual qualifications. Furthermore, codifying gender requirements for internal party leadership roles without addressing underrepresentation of women and intersex people in the Legislature itself can seem inconsistent and may not improve actual democratic representation.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Linsey on February 18, 2026 16:22
- This law needs passed. Others get by with stuff while others get max sentencing over nearly nothing. Stuff needs to change! Not just with this bill but other laws and constitutional laws!!!
2026 Regular Session HB5536 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 18, 2026 16:15
I oppose HB 5536 because it attempts—by ordinary statute—to restructure judicial review and the effect of constitutional rulings, creating legal uncertainty, delayed relief for unconstitutional actions, and expensive conflicts between branches of government.
1) It conflicts with the separation-of-powers design in the WV Constitution
HB 5536 is titled “Legislative Authority Over Judicial Review” and declares the Legislature “co-equal” in determining constitutionality and affirms authority to “review, modify, and overrule judicial decisions” interpreting the U.S. and WV Constitutions.
But Article V of the West Virginia Constitution requires the branches be “separate and distinct,” so that neither exercises powers belonging to the others.
A statute that empowers the political branches to “override” constitutional rulings risks collapsing that separation into a political process—especially when constitutional rights are supposed to be enforceable even when unpopular.
2) It raises the threshold to invalidate unconstitutional laws, enabling enforcement of unconstitutional actions
HB 5536 states that no statute or executive action may be deemed unconstitutional and void unless there is concurrence of at least four justices of the WV Supreme Court of Appeals.
But WV’s Supreme Court is a five-justice court, and the Constitution contemplates decision-making by a majority for business (quorum/majority structure).
This bill would create a supermajority requirement that can allow unconstitutional laws to remain in force even when a majority of the Court believes they violate the Constitution—meaning rights can be denied and harms can continue simply because the vote is 3–2.
3) It forces unconstitutional laws to remain effective while cases are pending, increasing real-world harm
HB 5536 requires lower-court constitutional rulings to be held “in abeyance” and states that, pending Supreme Court resolution, the challenged law or action “shall remain in full force and effect.”
That is a major future problem: it delays relief for people harmed by unconstitutional conduct—especially in urgent areas like medical care, civil liberties, voting access, due process, and wrongful enforcement—because even if a lower court finds a violation, the state must keep enforcing the challenged policy until the Supreme Court finally decides.
4) It creates a “legislative override” of constitutional rulings by joint resolution, politicizing constitutional rights
HB 5536 creates a process where the Legislature may pass a joint resolution to “override a judicial decision on a Constitutional issue,” with the Governor signing or vetoing it.
That invites a future where constitutional interpretation becomes a rotating partisan vote—different from a constitutional amendment process—leading to instability, retaliation against disfavored rulings, and constant power struggles rather than consistent rule of law.
5) It will drive costly litigation and confusion for agencies, courts, and the public
Because HB 5536 directly rewrites the effect of constitutional decisions (binding “only” on parties unless adopted by the Legislature, plus abeyance, plus a 4-justice requirement), it virtually guarantees:
- immediate constitutional challenges,
- conflicts between lower courts and state enforcement agencies,
- prolonged uncertainty about what law actually governs day-to-day conduct.
2026 Regular Session HB5533 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 18, 2026 16:11
I oppose HB 5533 because it conflicts with established constitutional law and exposes West Virginia to significant litigation and financial risk.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI) establishes that federal constitutional rulings are binding on the states. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that states may not nullify federal judicial decisions. This principle has been reaffirmed repeatedly throughout American legal history.
HB 5533 attempts to create a state mechanism to declare federal judicial rulings null and void within West Virginia and imposes criminal penalties on officials who enforce those rulings. Such provisions are highly likely to be challenged in federal court immediately upon enactment.
The predictable outcome includes:
- Federal injunctions
- Prolonged constitutional litigation
- Attorney’s fee liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1988
- Potential exposure to federal oversight orders
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jody Mohr on February 18, 2026 15:17
I find language in this bill troubling. Who determines what is substantial emotional distress? Who determines how far 30 feet is. What data exists that supports a need for this bill? It appears to be unconstitutional on several fronts.
2026 Regular Session SB30 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ashley on February 18, 2026 13:32
This is top tier unhinged cowboy-wannabe crap. Why in the world would you trust someone that young with a concealed weapon? A human's frontal lobe isn't fully developed until mid 20s. School shootings will get worse. College campus shootings will get worse. What abouy suicide rates? We have the highest poverty rate and are ranked last in happiness, education, infrastructures. The jobs are drying up. Infrastructure is crumbling. Mental Health staff are dwindling. Rent is going up. What do you think a depressed, ignorant, and young person is going to do when they finally snap if they have a gun? You just made it easy to allow more violence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brittany on February 18, 2026 08:47
If they can get behind the wheel high or drunk they deserve to be in jail point blank and not just 3 years they deserve longer sentences when they kill someone else look at the family of the loved ones who passed away they have to deal with it everyday and they don’t deserve to if the other driver is sober and another person hits them and kills them then they deserve to go to jail for a very long time
2026 Regular Session HB4052 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer A Bryant on February 18, 2026 07:06
First responders deserve to do their jobs as safely as possible. While this bill *might* in rare circumstances make a first responder safer, it leaves significant gray areas. The vague language (& lack of clarification) regarding what constitutes harassment or emotional distress can and almost certainly will lead to inconsistent enforcement and confusion among the public which breeds distrust and suspicion of law enforcement.
Additionally, this action not only will impede the freedoms provided by the first amendment for citizens but also members of the [free] press. Because of these concerns, I urge you to vote nay on this bill and go back to the table to find other, more concrete ways to help protect our first responders.
2026 Regular Session HB5374 (Judiciary)
Comment by: John Wells on February 18, 2026 06:58
The WV State Police Retirement Fund along with several similar agencies would not be happy with this bill along with sales & marketing people from all walks of life. We ALREADY have a national "do not call list" ran by our glorious Attorney General Office, which has no enforcement power and the calls never end. Our phone service providers, however, offer it's customers a robo call blocker with their service and charge a fee for it. Ge real here!!! Stop this at the source by forbidding the DATA COLLECTION companies from selling everyone's phone number and address to these entities that feed off the public purse. Junk mail solicitations should be included in such a bill. We could then save the rain forest from being cut down for such trash and increase the efficiency of our failing US Postal Service. Can you sponsors of this bill see the forest, or are the trees getting in the way? To remove a tree, start at the base, not the top. Also,..with hard line phones soon to be a thing of the past, where is the national cell phone directory we discussed months ago my friend? People would welcome it without a doubt, yet we have NOTHING unless we pay a data marketing firm for it. Your data is for sale.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Deborah Booker on February 18, 2026 01:49
At the age of 16 our sons and daughters know right from wrong. They know they can not buy beer, cigarettes, and definitely not possess illegal schedule 1 drugs. The life of another young woman was lost because of reckless disregard for human life. Compared to other states West Virginia has some of the most lenient punishments for retribution of blatantly breaking laws. A 6 month to 2 year sentence is a slap in the face of the victims family as well as a signal to teens that “oh that punishment is not so bad “, that’s even if they think that far ahead. A stiffer sentence would speak volumes to future youth in the sense that they would have some fear installed in them for breaking the laws. It’s embarrassing that I work in Virginia and the consensus there is if you want to commit a crime just cross over to West Virginia you will get a slap on the wrist. Another thing that needs to be looked at is teaching in the schools consequences for these illegal activities. Students need away to report this partying without being bullied. How a child is raised all starts at home in the big picture than on to school. CPS should have been involved with a teenager girl drinking and using cocaine because I can guarantee this was not her first time and history repeats itself so when she is finished it won’t be her last unless she gets the rehab, therapy, and support she needs. This sentence is just sad and embarrassing to our great state of West Virginia.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Roxie Miller on February 17, 2026 23:07
I am standing behind the House Bill 4712 a.k.a. Baylea’s Law! This is something that has needed changed for a long time. No parent should have to go through what Baylea’s family has endured. The heartache of losing someone is bad enough but for any family to lose them to an alcohol and drug intoxicated driver makes things even worse. Maybe if the punishment is stiffer it might make people stop and think before getting behind the wheel. Please pass this bill and make it law. Thank you in advance!
2026 Regular Session SB173 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tina Ladd on February 17, 2026 21:17
West Virginia already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country. SB 173 adds felony penalties and a private civil enforcement mechanism on top of existing restrictions.
Creating a system that allows private lawsuits with statutory damages, alongside criminal penalties, expands liability beyond clear medical regulation and into litigation-based enforcement.
Regardless of one’s position on abortion, structuring healthcare policy around felony exposure and civil penalties risks legal uncertainty and unintended consequences. That is not sound governance.
I respectfully urge the House Judiciary Committee to reject SB 173.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Gregory Kecken on February 17, 2026 19:50
The VA system can be complex to navigate. There should be no reason to not have an outside system to help if a veteran wishes to use this service.
2026 Regular Session HB5550 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amy Moloney on February 17, 2026 18:26
Please support HB 5550. This legislation is desperately needed. Animal Control Officers (ACOs) around the state NEED THIS BILL. The definition of "suitable" is what is needed in the field. An ACO needs "teeth" to perform his/her job and help the animals in this state. Without it, many animals go without adequate shelter and suffer needlessly. This Bill is written in a manner that excludes working dogs, so as not to step on toes of that industry. PLEASE OFFER SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL!
2026 Regular Session HB5619 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Laurie Townsend on February 17, 2026 16:42
As a West Virginians constituent, I oppose any law that mandates religious displays in public schools or government buildings. Government exists to serve all citizens, regardless of faith or belief. Requiring the Ten Commandments or religious mottos in taxpayer-funded spaces crosses the line between church and state and excludes many West Virginians.
Our public schools should focus on education, not religious endorsement. Families—not the government—decide matters of faith.
I urge our legislators to vote NO on this bill and protect the constitutional rights of every resident.
West Virginia's new motto:
The White Christian Nationalist State. If you aren't Christian don't come here.
2026 Regular Session HB5620 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Elaine Matheny on February 17, 2026 15:16
I want to thank Del. Kimble for putting forth this bill to try to restore local voices in the decision making for these data centers. There are a lot of issues about putting data centers in and it can only help the legislature to include constituents when making these decisions. The push for data centers may be driven by a technology bubble that is headed for a slow down. We need to be cautious before destroying our beautiful state (remember timber and coal?) We need to be sure the residents get a fair share of the income coming from these installations. At this time, the state government seems to be hoarding all the benefits and this is not acceptable. The jobs created by data centers do not outweigh the deterioration of our communities. Please help slow this process down so more people can have input and more studies can be done. Look at the trouble that other communities in nearby states are having! Thank you! Please get this bill onto a committee and give it your support.
2026 Regular Session HB5620 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cindy Nelson on February 17, 2026 14:49
I am writing in support of HB 5590 and HB 5620 which is legislation that returns control of community development to the residents that reside within that community.
The stress on public utilities, clean water resources, and noise pollution will be their burden to bear and the agenda to court data centers that will not return jobs, property taxes or community benefits certainly do not offer any compromise to those directly impacted by that agenda.
West Virginia's entire history is one of raping the land, pillaging and polluting the resources, ignoring infrastructure for those who live here, and hauling those profits off to anywhere but West Virginia is not a playbook for a successful future.
Please protect the good citizens of West Virginia from history repeating itself to the benefit of pockets of a few select billionaires at the expense of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Nelson
Morgantown, WV
2026 Regular Session SB173 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Donna Caruthers on February 17, 2026 13:41
I urge you to put this bill on the committee agenda & pass it onto the floor for a full vote. This supports our WV values by protecting life of both mother & baby as these pills are dangerous & have been banned in many countries. Thank you!
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ray Rappold on February 17, 2026 11:44
I’m really shocked that Senators did not recognize that this bill is obviously unconstitutional. I imagine a majority of the Delegates and the Governor will not recognize it either (resulting in public funds being spent to defend this later in court).
Keep doing stupid stuff WV Leg…
2026 Regular Session HB4865 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kathleen on February 17, 2026 11:18
I fully disagree with kids being required to choose a party affiliation. Many kids this age are still trying to figure out the basics of how to have an adult conversation and do not have a clear understanding of the working world, especially politics. I know this first hand. While I understand the concept for students to learn the process this is not a good idea. Rather than the interesting requirement to have a child choose an affiliation and be allowed to vote at 16 with no knowledge of how the system works - most adults do not have this knowledge! Try offering it up as community service for credits to observe and learn the process, but not be hands on in the actual.
2026 Regular Session HB4161 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael Gore on February 17, 2026 10:36
No, just no
2026 Regular Session HB4099 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael Gore on February 17, 2026 10:23
This should be common sense, make it so
2026 Regular Session HB4095 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael Gore on February 17, 2026 10:21
Dumbest bill I have seen in my 15 minutes of scrolling. This is anti cop. We are not California . Our cops need our support
2026 Regular Session HB4092 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael Gore on February 17, 2026 10:12
Seems like common sense, because I would NOT comply with a non American officer
2026 Regular Session HB5619 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sherry on February 17, 2026 02:49
I do not support this. What about every other religion? Will you make sure that they are also represented?
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: K on February 16, 2026 23:14
I'm sorry. I missed the part where your list of committees and involvement carried over to law enforcement & first responders with regard to distancing of others. Scratching backs. ALSO, in case you were unaware, status does not keep you from being eyed by a specific group of people cosplaying as law enforcement. You should search the origins of that last name. Maybe watch a video from Minneapolis. Like the ones where kids are running from the cosplayers JUST TO GET TO SCHOOL. Or the one where they arrest their own because HE IS HISPANIC. Or because of a man's HISPANIC ACCENT. MAYBE soul search why you're a politician.
2026 Regular Session HB5066 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 16, 2026 21:43
I strongly oppose this bill. The public has a right to know who is trying to influence elections, including where these people are from and their business affiliations to better understand their apparent goals. This bill is an attempt to bring more dark money into political campaigns.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Emily on February 16, 2026 20:37
There needs to be more harsh penalties for people that drive under the influence. There needs to be extremely harsh crimes for people that cause death while under the influence. There are too many innocent people dying because of ignorant actions of others. The drug epidemic is getting worse which leads to increased chances for accidents to happen.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sarah Hopper on February 16, 2026 20:25
This law needs to be changed to prevent future deaths from driving while impaired.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Seth Morris on February 16, 2026 20:24
We’ve got to give people a reason to not drink and drive. Too many lives have been lost due to the negligence and disregard for the value of human life by drunk people getting behind the wheel. Love bless you and give you His wisdom as you consider this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sue Tolley on February 16, 2026 19:55
Where is the justice for Baylea
that judge totally dismissed her as ever existing
please pass this bill
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Krista Kirk murray on February 16, 2026 19:49
Krista Kirk Murray
appalling that a judge would make such a disgusting decision for this wonderful family
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: LAWRENCE LEVINE on February 16, 2026 17:28
In reviewing this bill, I see another bill that claims to address a problem that doesn't exist. With recent downsizing and postmark changes at USPS, this bill could disenfranchise military, seniors, mobility challenged and health confined voters.
I urge no votes on 4600
2026 Regular Session HB4135 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tristan on February 16, 2026 17:06
**Statement on the Unconstitutionality of HB 4135**
**"HB 4135 constitutes an unconstitutional overreach that violates the 4th, 1st, and 14th Amendments, regardless of a registrant’s probation status. The bill’s fatal flaw is its attempt to bypass the 'Special Needs' doctrine of supervision in favor of suspicionless, general law enforcement surveillance."**
#### **I. The 'Stalking Horse' Violation (4th Amendment)**
Under the **"Special Needs" doctrine** (*Griffin v. Wisconsin*), a Probation Officer (PO) may search a phone to ensure a probationer is following their specific rules for rehabilitation. However, HB 4135 gives the **State Police**—general law enforcement—the power to demand digital identifiers and passwords.
Courts have long held that police cannot use a PO as a **"Stalking Horse"** to bypass the warrant requirement. If a PO already has the authority to monitor a phone for supervision, giving that same authority to the State Police serves no "supervisory" purpose; it is a general search for evidence of new crimes, which requires a warrant under *Riley v. California*.
#### **II. Failure of 'Narrow Tailoring' (1st Amendment)**
HB 4135 requires the disclosure of all "online identifiers," which includes anonymous handles, email addresses, and social media accounts.
In *Packingham v. North Carolina*, the Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot broadly restrict access to the "modern public square" (the internet). By forcing a registrant to reveal every anonymous alias to the State Police, the bill creates a **"Chilling Effect."** It prevents lawful, anonymous speech on topics unrelated to the crime (political, religious, or hobbyist), which violates the 1st Amendment's protection of anonymous speech.
#### **III. The 'Punitive in Effect' Doctrine (Ex Post Facto)**
For a registry requirement to be constitutional, it must be **"Regulatory,"** not **"Punitive."** *
Because a person on probation is *already* being monitored by the court system, HB 4135 adds a second, redundant layer of police surveillance. This redundancy proves that the law’s intent isn't "public safety" (which is already covered by the PO), but is instead meant to increase the "burden and disability" on the individual. This makes the law **punitive** meaning it cannot be applied retroactively to anyone whose crime occurred before the law's passage.
#### **IV. Testimonial Compulsion (5th Amendment)**
Forcing a registrant to provide "online identifiers" and device access to the State Police—rather than a PO—compels them to provide the keys to their own private "papers and effects" for criminal investigation purposes.
* **The Argument:** This is **"Testimonial"** in nature. Compelling a person to give police the "digital fingerprints" of their online life without a warrant or a specific investigation into a new crime is a direct violation of the privilege against self-incrimination.
### **The "Simmons Strategy" Comparison**
| Legal Principle | Why HB 4135 Fails |
| **Special Needs Doctrine** | It shifts supervision from a PO (rehab) to the Police (punishment). |
| **Narrow Tailoring** | It sweeps up too much innocent speech and anonymous activity. |
| **Ex Post Facto** | It adds new "disabilities" to people who already finished their court cases or have been sentenced. |
| **4th Amendment** | It treats a phone like a "container," ignoring its status as a "mini-home" (*Riley*). |
2026 Regular Session HB4764 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 16, 2026 16:45
This bill seems to be designed to require candidates for state, county, and local offices to submit a financial statement including whether owing any back taxes. If so, they would not be eligible to run for office. The bill specifically says 'all persons elected statewide'. Please tell me that would include U.S. Senators and Representatives. If it does, great bill. I'm embarassed that we are represented by a tax dodging billionaire U.S. Senator. I guess because I'm not wealthy I don't understand why a debt when due isn't paid, especially if you are sitting on a large pile of money. We deserve better.
2026 Regular Session SB173 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Elisa K Payne on February 16, 2026 16:45
I urge you to vote to pass this bill. The Legislature spoke loudly during the 2023 session to ban abortion in WV, with limited exceptions. Use of this drug is a violation of this legislation. In addition, it has many harmful side effects, including death. Many thanks to the Senate body for their diligence in getting this passed and I am asking you, as Delegates, to do the same. Thank You!
2026 Regular Session HB5413 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tristan on February 16, 2026 16:32
This bill is still unconstitutional,even though the language in Hb 5413 directed the funds to go to the circuit clerk it still gets deposited into the state police account to cover mental health expenses and for general operations of the state police,none of the money will be used for registry upkeep and compliance and as currently written language of Hb 5413 states that property liens are still viable for non payment which violates ex post facto law and violates the 8th and 14th amendment to the US and west virginia constitution and you will get sued and lose in court again you guys need to do your job and think before you pass things into law that you know will be struck by a federal judge,quit wasting tax payers money for litigation and further trying to punish people for being on the registry
2026 Regular Session HB4599 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mia Johnson on February 16, 2026 16:04
The problem is that in this economic environment, no one can wait 60 days for a job. People have to be employed, and they will look for something else that isn’t restricted by processes like ours. The variance prohibits us from filling critical vacancies in a timely manner. We have lost candidates for critical positions due to this process. This has left some of our positions vacant for over seven months. This disrupts services to children and families in our care.
Jobs in the child welfare field are some of the lowest-paid due to the lack of rate increases. There is no monetary reason to wait 60 days to get hired. Then another two weeks to receive the first paycheck. Not when employers such as Aetna and Procter & Gamble are competing for the same people, offering salaries thousands of dollars more than we can.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Bruce Carter on February 16, 2026 15:35
As a veteran I find this bill appalling. I fought for our country and your freedoms and I should have the freedom to choose who I want to represent me when it comes to my benefits and my life. Do we not live in the land of the free. Please consider not passing this bill.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Phillip T Moore on February 16, 2026 15:25
I oppose this bill for several reasons. The first is that the veteran should be able to get help from where they fill is looking out for them. Second is just going through the VA system is time consuming, and irritating. They have all of the records you need, but they make you try to find records from years ago. With these different people that a veteran can get help from, it makes the process easier and less irritating.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Barbara Fulco on February 16, 2026 13:21
this bill needs to be passed. No other family should have to go through of what this family had to. What that judge did was a disgrace to Bailey’s memories. The girl destiny should be been put in jail.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Nyoka Taylor on February 16, 2026 12:17
It was an injustice to Baylee how the sentencing went. Why should that woman get a slap on the wrist when she lost her life.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tessia Treadway on February 16, 2026 11:22
To say how shameful it is live in a community that this is even a debate and not treated fairly as common decency and knowledge MURDER IS MURDER & that is what this is.
What happened to Baylea Bower could have happened to anyone, a grandmother, a mother with children in the vehicle. Nobody deserves to pass the way she did, at least she deserves is respect from the system and public eye. Baylea was someone’s baby, best friend, partner, their whole life was in that car. She deserved to be able to accomplish her dreams, become a mother if she wanted watch her children grow up, see her friends get married, watch her life unfold and wrinkles on her face appear. I pray this law passes for our future and respect and compassion is given & people who know the possible consequences to the actions they decide to pursue are also faced with harsh punishment.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: John S Provins III on February 16, 2026 11:19
Hello,
Having the ability to choose the assistance of a private organization when navigating the complex VA Compensation and Benefits system is absolutely vital. I personally tried to use the in-house options provided to the VA and I was consistently met with phones that were not answered and voicemails that were not returned. Without the help of my chosen private organization I would still be fighting to get any compensation whatsoever. Limiting this choice is a disservice to West Virginia's veterans and our families. I strongly encourage you all to please let this option be available now and in the future. Thank you for your time.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Martin R Meador on February 16, 2026 11:10
Veterans should be able to choose whom they want to handle their claim.
I struggled for over 25 years trying to use the flawed VA system to file my claims. I have filled both by myself and using VA help. I did not receive any results in my favor using "the system." It was not until I found two different private organizations to help me with my claims was I successful in having my military service caused medical conditions recognized and compensated.
Why would the WV Legislature try to limit a Veteran's right to seek resolution on my behalf?
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stephen Sullivan on February 16, 2026 11:09
Opposing hard. Tired of being fucked by the VA and corrupt politicians. Stop fucking with Veterans.
Semper Fi,
Steve
2026 Regular Session HB4515 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jon M. Casey on February 16, 2026 11:05
I would ask that you support House Bill 4515 to make sure that it is discussed on the floor of the House and that it would eventually pass.
There are hundreds of wonderful people in this state who would benefit from the changes that this bill would make. Hundreds of families have devoted their lives to their local churches that have been betrayed by their denomination and who are looking to depart in a way that provides them with the property and holdings to which they have contributed since their youth.
Churches who wish to dissaffilliate need the legal support that this bill offers.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jon M. Casey
217 Heuser Avenue
Princeton, WV 24740
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dan Miller on February 16, 2026 11:04
Why would Senator Olivario (and the WV Senate) sponsor a bill that would remove our constitutional rights to observe the ICE team's behavior knowing that ICE has broken the law and are not being held accountable by our administration? This is a shameful bill that should be tossed in the garbage.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Denise Smith on February 16, 2026 10:18
Justice for Bayea
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Gabrielle on February 16, 2026 10:03
This should be passed
2026 Regular Session HB5390 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kelly Allen, West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy on February 16, 2026 09:08
The WVCBP has long advocated for policies that would increase the accuracy and effectiveness of fiscal notes. While we agree with the intention behind this legislation, we have serious concerns about the proposal itself and would recommend lawmakers pursue other, better suited means of strengthening the fiscal note process.
The largest flaw in the current fiscal note process is that these analyses come from partisan entities, namely agencies that are involved in the governor's policy and budget process and have self-interest in many bills under consideration that they are asked to provide fiscal notes for. While this legislation seeks to get around that by creating a felony for knowingly false information in fiscal notes, it would likely and unintentionally create a chilling effect on an agency's willingness to submit detailed information on fiscal notes or even submit them at all. Agencies may prefer not to put a fiscal note on record at all rather than risk the consequences of this legislation since committees can proceed with bill consideration without a fiscal note and there is no deadline on when agencies must submit fiscal notes.
A better process would be to ensure a non-partisan entity is creating fiscal notes with information provided by the relevant agencies. In 2021, the Division of Regulatory and Fiscal Affairs was created to do just that, but according to the publicly available system, they've not been assigned any fiscal note requests in the 2026 legislative session and the Legislative Auditor has only been assigned four. We can strengthen state code and staffing around these offices and require them to submit non-partisan fiscal notes for all legislation that impacts revenues.
We can also strengthen each Chamber's rules about utilizing fiscal notes, which right now say that the Division of Regulatory and Fiscal Affairs or the Joint Committee on Government and Finance may provide additional information (changing it to shall), disallow committees from moving ahead with bills that do not have fiscal notes, and make sure it is no longer the responsibility of the sponsor of a bill to request and obtain the fiscal note.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss strong efforts to strengthen the fiscal note process.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael King on February 16, 2026 08:25
Chairman, Members of the Committee,
My name is Michael King. I am a retired United States Army Sergeant Major. I have spent my adult life serving this country — first in uniform, and now by working on behalf of veterans navigating the VA disability system. I have served as a nationally VA-accredited Veteran Service Officer, and I have also worked in the private sector assisting veterans with claims education and support. I have seen this issue from both sides.
I recognize and respect this legislature’s desire to safeguard veterans from exploitation. That objective is important. No veteran who has earned benefits through service and sacrifice should ever be misled, overcharged, or taken advantage of.
My concern is that SB 704, as currently written, may unintentionally reduce veterans’ access to assistance rather than improve it.
The VA claims system is complex. It is regulatory, document-heavy, and often slow. While there are excellent free resources available, there is no single solution that works for every veteran. There is no “one size fits all” resource when it comes to navigating disability claims. Some veterans prefer traditional accredited representation. Others seek additional educational or consultative support because of prior experiences, availability challenges, or personal preference.
Veterans pursue different paths for different reasons. Some need more individualized guidance. Some need more communication. Some simply want another option. Eliminating lawful assistance models does not eliminate the need — it only limits choice. It also shifts additional demand onto existing resources that are, in many areas, already operating at or beyond capacity. When veterans cannot access timely support, frustration increases and claims are more likely to be abandoned.
Federal law already establishes a clear framework for who may formally represent a veteran before the Department of Veterans Affairs as an accredited attorney, claims agent, or VSO. That accreditation structure governs individuals acting as a veteran’s legal representative of record in the preparation and prosecution of claims before the VA. However, not every service provided to veterans constitutes legal representation before the agency. There is an important distinction between formal representation and providing educational guidance or consulting support.
As a senior enlisted leader, I believe in accountability, standards, and oversight. If there are bad actors in this space, they should be addressed directly. Sensible guardrails — such as mandatory written agreements, full fee transparency, clear advertising standards, and enforcement authority against deceptive practices — can protect veterans without eliminating legitimate options.
Prohibition is a blunt instrument. Guardrails are a disciplined solution.
Veterans are capable of making informed decisions when provided clear, accurate information. Our role should be to ensure transparency and ethical conduct in the marketplace — not to remove lawful avenues of support that some veterans may determine best meet their needs.
This is not about defending any one company or business model. It is about preserving veteran autonomy while implementing meaningful consumer protections.
I respectfully ask this body to carefully evaluate whether SB 704 strikes the appropriate balance between protection and access. Veterans deserve safeguards, but they also deserve options.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Michael King
Sergeant Major, U.S. Army (Retired)
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Martha Elder on February 16, 2026 08:08
We are always behind the times. This would be a good revenue for the state. Medical community knows more about this and is no worse than cigarettes
2026 Regular Session HB5219 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lyn widmyer on February 16, 2026 07:02
This is another attempt to suppress the vote. This would send a message to those seeking to attend college here: Enroll in WV college and lose your vote!
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: National Association for Veterans Rights on February 16, 2026 05:18
Submitted on behalf of the National Association for Veterans Rights (NAVR)
NAVR respectfully submits this comment in opposition to SB 704. We strongly support protecting Veterans from fraud, predatory guarantees, and excessive fees. Transparency and accountability should always be part of the system. However, SB 704 would unintentionally restrict Veterans’ access to lawful, ethical assistance that many voluntarily seek. By limiting compensation for certain services, the bill risks reducing Veterans’ freedom to choose who helps them navigate an often complex and delayed VA benefits process. Veterans deserve both protection and choice. Efforts to address misconduct should not unintentionally limit access to responsible support organizations that help fill existing gaps. NAVR respectfully urges reconsideration of SB 704 in its current form in favor of a more balanced approach that safeguards Veterans while preserving their right to make informed decisions about their disability claims assistance.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Billie Nida on February 16, 2026 01:26
- Bill HB 1234 should be passed. Consequences should be paid for the crime that was committed.
2026 Regular Session HB5219 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ron Allen on February 15, 2026 23:01
I urge you to strongly oppose HB 5219, as it introduces a complex and unnecessary system for determining residency that threatens the fundamental right to register and vote. Although the bill claims to clarify residency rules for judicial purposes, it raises more questions than it answers, creating confusion in the electoral process.
The inadvertent typo regarding “register to vote” exemplifies the lack of attention to detail within the bill, undermining its credibility. Furthermore, committee discussions highlighted multiple instances of vague and subjective language, opening the door to potential misinterpretation and inconsistency.
Particularly concerning is the bill's approach to college students’ residency, which directly contradicts the 1979 Supreme Court ruling in Symm v. United States. This ruling affirms the right of students to register and vote where they attend college, a fundamental principle that cannot be overridden by state laws. The provisions in HB 5219 pose a serious threat to this constitutional right.
In conclusion, HB 5219 represents a regression in our pursuit of fair and accessible voting for all residents. It risks erecting barriers instead of fostering inclusivity in our democratic process.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Robert Obong on February 15, 2026 21:54
Statement of Opposition to SB704
My name is Robert V. Obong, and I am a Retired United States Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer, a Retired Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Security & Law Enforcement (OS&LE) Special Agent, and a Veteran.
I am submitting this statement in firm opposition to SB704, as this WV legislation does not provide meaningful solutions for Combat Veterans or any Veterans.
SB704 instead introduces additional barriers for Veterans who are already navigating an overburdened, delayed, and inconsistent system.
Many Veterans—regardless of combat status—have relied on Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) as free, accessible resources, only to encounter long wait times, limited availability, and systemic delays.
Veterans routinely stand in line for hours, only to be told to return another day—sometimes repeatedly. Phone calls often go unanswered, routed to voicemail, or returned days later, if at all. These are not isolated occurrences; they reflect persistent access issues that discourage Veterans from continuing to seek assistance.
For Veterans living with service-connected physical or mental health conditions, these obstacles can be especially harmful.
Repeated delays, uncertainty, and lack of responsiveness can aggravate existing conditions and create additional stress.
These issues are further compounded by challenges within the VA system itself, including appointment cancellations, provider shortages, and limited provider availability—circumstances entirely outside a Veteran’s control.
From both a Veteran perspective and my experience as a VA OS&LE Special Agent, I have seen firsthand how policies that fail to account for real-world operational constraints ultimately harm the very population they are intended to protect.
SB704 does nothing to address these systemic deficiencies. Instead, it restricts Veteran choice and personal agency, limiting how and from whom Veterans may seek assistance.
Veterans should not lose their freedom of choice due to legislation that imposes prohibitions without fixing access, capacity, or responsiveness. Any policy intended to support Veterans must expand options, improve accountability, and respect individual circumstances.
A law that restricts options without resolving systemic failures creates new hurdles rather than solutions.
This must remain a Veteran’s choice, not a statutory mandate that limits options and further burdens those who have already served.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose SB704.
Respectfully,
Robert V. Obong, BASCJ
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer
Retired VA OS&LE Special Agent
Veteran
CEO - Just 4 Veterans Enterprise
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Roberto Obong on February 15, 2026 21:27
Statement of Opposition to SB704
My name is Roberto Obong, and I am a retired United States Marine Corps Enlisted Warrant Officer and a Combat Veteran (Desert Storm, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan).
I am submitting this message in strong opposition to SB704, as this bill does not provide meaningful solutions for me or for other Veterans.
Instead, SB704 creates additional hurdles and barriers for Combat Veterans who have historically relied on free services provided by Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs).
Many of us have firsthand experience with the limitations of the current system. We have stood in line for hours, only to be told to return another day—then another. When we attempt to call for assistance, we are often met with answering machines, no availability, or delayed callbacks that come days later, if at all.
This process is not only disheartening, but deeply frustrating. For Veterans already dealing with existing mental health conditions, these obstacles can worsen symptoms and create unnecessary emotional strain. This is compounded by challenges within the VA system itself, including appointment cancellations, provider unavailability, and other circumstances beyond a Veteran’s control.
SB704 does not solve these problems. Instead, it limits a Combat Veteran’s freedom of choice and personal agency—the very freedoms we served to protect. A law that restricts access to assistance or dictates how and from whom Veterans may seek help does not serve Veterans’ best interests.
Veterans should be empowered, not restricted. Any approach to Veteran support must prioritize choice, accessibility, and respect for individual circumstances.
This must remain a Veteran’s choice, not a legislative mandate that prohibits options and creates additional barriers to care and assistance.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose SB704.
Respectfully,
Robert Obong
Retired U.S. Marine
Combat Veteran
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Roberto Obong on February 15, 2026 21:08
Veteran Personal Perspective on Senate Bill 704
As a Veteran who served honorably in both peacetime and during the Global War on Terror, I believe it is important that policies affecting Veterans reflect the diversity of our experiences, needs, and perspectives.
Senate Bill 704 does not represent all Veterans. Veterans are not a monolithic group, and no single approach or restriction can adequately serve everyone who has worn the uniform. Our service—whether during combat operations or in peacetime—was rendered with the understanding that we would retain personal agency, dignity, and choice after our service concluded.
I strongly believe that Veterans should retain the option to choose the services and resources that best meet their individual needs. That freedom of choice is not a privilege—it is something we have earned through honorable service, sacrifice, and commitment to this nation.
Limiting options for Veterans, even with good intentions, risks overlooking the unique circumstances of each Veteran’s health, family, financial situation, and lived experience. Empowerment, informed decision‑making, and access to lawful services are essential to preserving Veteran autonomy and well‑being.
Policies affecting Veterans should be inclusive, flexible, and Veteran‑centric, ensuring that no Veteran is forced into a one‑size‑fits‑all system. True support means trusting Veterans to make decisions for themselves—just as they were trusted to serve their country.
This statement reflects my personal stance as a Veteran, grounded in respect for service, freedom of choice, and the principle that those who served honorably deserve options—not limitations.
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Margaret Reese on February 15, 2026 19:11
This bill is unconstitutional as it limits a person’s right to assemble and free speech. This bill should never be passed. Montani Semper Liberi should be something lived by every West Virginian, not just words on the WV Seal and Flag.
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ryan Elkins on February 15, 2026 19:07
I find this bill in direct violation of our constitutional rights as free Americans and should not be passed into law. 30 feet is impossible for anyone to abide by in situations were many poeple are around when something first happends. Specifically if at a home where more than one person lives. Please vote NO to this obsurd bill.
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael Mosteller II on February 15, 2026 18:57
This bill infringes on our 1st amendment rights.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: marsha boggess on February 15, 2026 18:10
I support this bill whole heartily. It's time that people who make decisions to drink and drive suffer consequences equal to the destruction they cause in the lives of others. Maybe if laws were stiffer on drunk driving they'd think twice before driving intoxicated or impaired. A slap on the wrist doesn't cut it.
2026 Regular Session HB5147 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 15, 2026 18:04
Definitely Yes. Any costitutional amendment(s) on a ballot initiative should include ALL verbage that is to be part of any proposed amendment. What's more, constitutional amendments should be few and far between. This bill fits well with what Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government”.
2026 Regular Session HB5133 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 15, 2026 17:45
A common sense proposal that looks out for older voters. This deserves a yes from both sides and the middle.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Samantha Jones on February 15, 2026 17:33
My name is Samantha Jones, and I am writing in full support of House Bill 4712, “Baylea’s Law.” On July 23, 2009, a drunk driver made the choice to get behind the wheel and drove into our yard, killing my Aunt Dianne Wyatt while she was standing behind my vehicle guiding me. I survived, but I spent six months in physical therapy and continue to live with PTSD and survivor’s guilt. My aunt was the heart of our family — the one who showed up for every milestone, every celebration, every hard season. My cousin lost his mother. My mom, aunts, and uncle lost their sister. We did not lose her in an “accident.” We lost her because of a decision that never should have been made. The driver served only a few years. Our family has been serving a life sentence of grief ever since.
I offer my deepest condolences to the family of Baylea Bower and to every West Virginia family carrying this same kind of preventable loss. House Bill 4712 recognizes that when someone chooses to drive impaired and takes a life, the consequences must reflect the permanence of that harm. Stronger accountability will not bring our loved ones back, but it affirms that their lives mattered and that our state refuses to minimize the devastation caused by impaired driving. I respectfully urge you to pass this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5037 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 15, 2026 17:01
I strongly oppose this bill. Imagine being born somewhere else but you've decided to make the United States your home, you've done the right things including becoming an American citizen, you raise and educate your children, you work hard and pay taxes; you sincerely care about this country. Each election you diligently cast your vote. But, now imagine you're told that not only can't you hold political office, you can't vote any longer in any elections. As an American I'm embarassed that I even have to address such a ridiculous notion.
2026 Regular Session HB4106 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Christy Cardwell on February 15, 2026 16:55
I’m deeply concerned about HB4106, which would allow an 18-year-old to concealed carry a gun with no permit. As a mother and a teacher, I assure you that this bill is problematic. I fully support our Second Amendment rights, but those rights come with a great responsibility and a need for common sense in exercising them.
What bothers me most is that an 18-year-old, while considered to be an adult, is still a teenager—an adolescent. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the US.
I realize we send 18-year-olds to defend our country, but "Old enough to serve, old enough to carry" ignores the fact that soldiers get PLENTY of weapons training that civilians DON'T get.
I mentioned common sense when exercising our rights. We tend to understand common sense with other dangerous activities, such as driving, and it makes sense to require a permit for carrying a concealed weapon.
Furthermore, this bill is prohibited normative because it undermines the campus carry law requiring carriers to get a concealed carry permit.
I ask you to consider this data from a published WVU study: after enactment of permitless carry in WV in 2016 (21 and older), homicides increased by more than 40% as did handgun- inflicted fatalities, while long gun fatalities remained unchanged. (Lundstrom et al, Amer J of Pub Hlth 2023). I hope you agree that removing permitted carry at ANY age, much less at 18, does much more harm than it does good.
Finally, I’ll leave you with this thought: many 18-year-olds are still in high school. As a teacher with children of her own, I fear that allowing 18-year-olds to carry concealed weapons could allow a student to carry a weapon into school and, worse, use that weapon to harm children and the school personnel who try to protect them.
Please, I implore you: don’t pass this dangerous bill.
Christy Cardwell
Mullens
Wyoming County
2026 Regular Session HB4106 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Danita Nellhaus on February 15, 2026 15:50
HB 4106 should be opposed on so many levels. 18-20 year olds can hunt with their guns but should not be permitted to carry concealed weapons without a license. The risk of self injury and injury to others is too great. This is the age group who could act on suicidal thoughts if guns were readily accessible
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jessica Fleming on February 15, 2026 14:40
Our hearts and prayers go out to Baylea’s family!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tamara Simmons on February 15, 2026 13:16
This should be made into a law !! It might make a person think before they behind the wheel of a vehicle & save lives
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michelle Leckrone on February 15, 2026 13:10
I agree
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Merle Jones on February 15, 2026 12:46
My name is Merle Jones, and I am a United States Army Veteran with over 23 years of service. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts regarding Senate Bill 704.
I respectfully submit my comments in opposition to SB 704 based on concerns about the bill’s impact on individual choice and access to trusted assistance concerning veterans’ benefits.
SB 704, known as the Veterans’ Empowerment and Trust Safeguard Act, proposes to prohibit certain individuals from receiving compensation for assisting others with obtaining veterans’ benefits, as well as to regulate referrals and written fee agreements related to such assistance. The bill also seeks to define violations under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
As someone who has served this country and sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, I believe deeply in the principles of individual liberty, informed choice, and personal agency. While it is important to protect veterans from predatory or unscrupulous actors, I am concerned that the broad prohibitions in SB 704 may unintentionally limit veterans’ ability to choose from a range of qualified and reputable advocates or service providers when seeking assistance with navigating complex benefit systems.
Veterans’ benefit processes are often detailed and nuanced, and many veterans rely on trusted advisors — including attorneys, accredited representatives, and experienced advocates — to help them understand their options and pursue their claims. Prescribing overly restrictive rules about who may be compensated for this work could narrow those options and reduce meaningful choice at a time when veterans most need support. As a veteran, I value the freedom to choose the services I use, and I served to defend that freedom for all Americans. In nearly every area of life—taxes, Social Security, Medicare, healthcare—I can choose to use free services or pay a professional for assistance. I believe I should have that same choice when it comes to claims processing. Seeking and paying for help with a disability claim is no different than hiring someone to prepare my taxes. It is a personal decision, and it should remain my right to make.
Public policy works best when it protects against abuse while still preserving flexibility and choice for those directly affected. I urge the committee to carefully reconsider moving forward with SB 704.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the State of West Virginia.
Respectfully submitted,
Merle Jones
CSM (R) U.S. Army Veteran
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jessica Meadows-Harbert’ on February 15, 2026 11:14
I stand for
House Bill 4712
Vote Yes2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Katie Estep on February 15, 2026 10:59
This bill is needed desperately so that anyone who drinks & drives while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol causing death gets a stricter sentence than the current law carries.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cristy Anderson on February 15, 2026 10:31
Baylea’s mother lost a child to a drunk driver.
Parents in WV family courts are losing children to drunk drivers too….. when the court gives full custody to the drunk driving parent, despite police reports, safety plans, and CPS substantiated abuse. This will happen when the other coparent has no legal history, no substance abuse history, is financially stable, and is not a troublemaker at all.
Why would this happen? Because the non-drunk driving co-parent pushed for prosecution of the drunk-driving parent. The non-drunk-driving parent is accused of “alienating behavior” or “not encouraging a positive relationship” between the children and parent who could have killed the children. Yes, seeking accountability for a drunk driver becomes weaponized against the safe, protective parent. The safe parent will be accused of “teaching the children that the drunk driver could have killed them.”
When innocent lives, like Baylea Bowers, are taken, the system pretends to be shocked and outraged. The system feigns, “What could we have done differently to prevent this?”
If Destany Lester grew up watching the legal system of WV give free passes or even reward drunk drivers, the system itself bears some onus in each death that occurs in the state. It is teaching the next generation to normalize drunk driving. It is teaching the next generation that if you drive drunk and risk killing someone, the system will punish those who seek prosecution, and it will reward those who choose this risky behavior.
Studies and statistics show that the greatest deterrent to drunk driving is “certainty of punishment over severity of punishment.” All drunk drivers need to know that they will certainly be charged, prosecuted, and laws will be equally enforced, regardless of familial status, regardless of job status, regardless of any other factors.
The confidence we place in our judiciary depends upon equal enforcement of our laws, no matter who commits the crime. WV needs tougher punishments for drunk driving and we need to see those consequences equally enforced, possibly removing or severely limiting judicial discretion in sentencing. We also have to completely prohibit retaliatory acts against those who push for prosecution of true and factual dangerous behavior.
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: John Blomstrom on February 15, 2026 09:58
I am a United States Marine Corps veteran who has spent my post-service career working with and advocating for fellow veterans. I appreciate West Virginia’s efforts to protect veterans from predatory practices, and I share that goal. My concern is that SB 704, as drafted, may unintentionally reduce veterans’ access to assistance rather than improve it.
Many veterans seek help beyond traditional free resources because they experience confusion, delays, or limited communication in the VA claims process. For some veterans, additional support—whether from accredited representatives or private consultants—can be the difference between successfully navigating the system and abandoning a claim they rightfully earned.
Federal law already governs who may formally represent veterans before the VA as an accredited agent or attorney. Those rules apply to individuals acting as a veteran’s legal representative or agent of record in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims. Entities that do not act in that legal representative capacity fall outside that framework under federal statute and regulation .
There are also important constitutional considerations. Courts have repeatedly recognized that giving specialized advice and exchanging information are protected forms of speech. Broad prohibitions on compensated assistance can implicate veterans’ rights to speak, associate, and petition their government for earned benefits .
My concern is not about any one company or business model. It is about ensuring veterans retain freedom of choice while being protected from deception. Strong consumer safeguards—such as transparency requirements, written agreements, and prohibitions on misleading practices—can protect veterans without limiting their lawful options.
West Virginia veterans deserve both protection and choice. I respectfully urge lawmakers to consider whether SB 704 strikes the right balance and whether narrower, targeted protections could achieve the same goal without restricting access to assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
John Blomstrom
U.S. Marine Corps Veteran
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Loretta Jewell on February 15, 2026 08:57
To whom it may concern,
There needs to be stricter laws for the people who are driving under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, meth, or any other drug there is.
When involving a murder it should be 25 years max.
The ruling in this case is right down ridiculous. That murderer (Lester) got put in time out basically, for killing another human being. Robing (Bower) of her life but yet Lester still gets to go on about her life like nothing happened.
There are people in Jail today that's been there for years over selling marijuana.
A murder (Lester) gets 6 months home confinement, and 6 months in a rehabilitation center. Really? really? Make it make sense please.
The ruling in this case just give permission that it's ok to drink and drive high and drunk and kill someone and face no consequences.
Who will be the next victim?
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sara Duncan on February 15, 2026 08:22
Tougher laws needed for vehiclar homicide
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Linda Carter on February 15, 2026 07:39
Needs to pass on behalf of the family of Baylea Bower, prayers continues for just.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Linda Carter on February 15, 2026 07:35
This needs to pass what a disgrace at the sentencing for Destiny Lester.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer Workman Mills on February 14, 2026 22:24
I support this bill! Long live Baylea!! ✝️🕊💔
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Christina Creasy on February 14, 2026 19:30
This was so heartbreaking. I’m confused how you can be under the influence of all this, cross three lanes of traffic, take someone’s life, and not do any jail time. Please make this make sense.
2026 Regular Session HB4412 (Judiciary)
Comment by: West Virginia Resident on February 14, 2026 18:58
This poor legislation... STOP trying to “fix” the internet without understanding how it actually works. If you do/have not work(ed) in the tech industry, and you have not meaningfully consulted software engineers, security professionals, and privacy experts as part of serious due diligence on this bill, you are not equipped to legislate it responsibly.
Mandating age or identity verification across websites and apps is not a simple checkbox feature. At scale, it requires collecting, transmitting, and in practice often temporarily storing highly sensitive personal data such as government IDs, facial images, financial credentials, and device identifiers. That necessarily expands data retention and processing pipelines across multiple entities, including third party verification vendors. Each additional processor, API integration, and logging layer increases the attack surface and creates centralized repositories of high value identity data. Even brief retention windows do not eliminate risk. Data is still exposed during upload, transmission, verification, and logging, and a breach during any of those stages can result in irreversible harm. Those are not hypotheticals. They are predictable outcomes of system design.
Statutory prohibitions on selling or retaining data sound protective, but they do not neutralize structural incentives or technical realities. Vendors may retain metadata, hashed identifiers, fraud scores, or transaction logs under broad allowances for security, abuse prevention, or legal compliance. Those records can be correlated across platforms, enabling cross service profiling even if raw IDs are deleted. Enforcement is reactive and resource constrained, while misuse and overcollection are often invisible to the public. Once identity verification infrastructure is normalized, function creep is predictable. Systems built for one category of content can be expanded to others, steadily eroding anonymity and increasing long term privacy risk for lawful adults.
Yes, minors should not be accessing pornography. But that is one narrow example within a much broader online landscape. The internet contains many forms of content that are inappropriate for children. We do not solve that by forcing every digital service to build identity surveillance infrastructure.
In the physical world, we do not assign the government to monitor every household to ensure children cannot access medication, alcohol, chemicals, adult magazines, or other restricted items. Parents are responsible for safeguarding their homes. The same principle applies online.
Further, what safeguards prevent this same verification infrastructure from being used to identify and target minors? If a system can distinguish adults from children, it can just as easily isolate children as a category, creating the capacity to profile and algorithmically target minors at scale, a risk far more consequential than the narrow harm this overreaching bill claims to address.
Protect children, yes. But do not dismantle privacy and architectural neutrality in the process.
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Matthew B Cole on February 14, 2026 15:37
This bill is a gross violation of our First Amendment rights to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Police have a difficult job but that does not give the WV Legislature the right to violate the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. I object to all of this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Megan Settle on February 14, 2026 15:24
Baylea Bill needs to pass. If this pass was available 14 years ago my sister would still be here alive with my family.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Monica Tatum on February 14, 2026 15:12
West Virginia is never going to improve as a state if we keep indulging the criminals. Drug addiction is a disease, but that is not an excuse to endanger other people's lives. Stricter sentencing guidelines are a must.
2026 Regular Session HB4534 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 14, 2026 13:41
Please do not vote this into law. If it looks like voter suppression, then maybe it is. Does this proposal suggest that elections are not secure? Another solution to a problem that simply does not exist.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kayleigh Allman on February 14, 2026 13:37
This is a bill that absolutely needs to be passed so that families who WILL experience a travesty like this will get the justice they deserve!!
2026 Regular Session HB4534 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 14, 2026 13:04
Please vote yes to protect property owners against this type of fraud. Many times I see fixes for problems that don't exist. I can honestly say that this addresses a real and growing problem. Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Terri Beller on February 14, 2026 12:55
The current sentencing for this crime is a joke. These changes should've happened long before now! Do better!! Although nothing will bring this beautiful young woman back, the least you could do is see to it that no other family has to experience this slap to the face!
2026 Regular Session SB704 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Edward Diaz on February 14, 2026 12:32
SB 704 is designed to protect veterans and their families from predatory practices by unaccredited, for-profit companies that charge fees for assistance with VA disability claims. These companies — often referred to as “claim sharks” — have increasingly targeted veterans while lobbying policymakers with misleading claims about their role and value.
Evidence from veterans organizations, consumer protection officials, and federal guidance demonstrates that many industry talking points misrepresent the risks and overlook the extensive free, accredited assistance already available.
Supporting SB 704 would align West Virginia with best practices to safeguard veterans’ earned benefits and prevent financial exploitation.
Background
Federal law requires individuals assisting veterans with disability compensation claims to be accredited through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure training, ethical standards, and oversight.
Free assistance is widely available through accredited Veterans Service Organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, as well as state veteran service officers with the West Virginia Department of Veterans Assistance in locations across West Virginia.
SB 704 reinforces these protections by limiting compensation for unaccredited claims assistance and strengthening consumer safeguards.
Why SB 704 Is Necessary
1. Industry Lobbyists Misrepresent Their Services
Claim: Companies only provide consulting or education.
Fact: Many firms use semantic distinctions to avoid accreditation while still guiding veterans through claims preparation and charging significant fees. Activity — not terminology — determines consumer risk.
Relevance to SB 704: The bill closes loopholes that allow companies to avoid oversight through rebranding.
2. Paid Services Are Not Needed
Claim: Veterans must pay for help because the system is too complex.
Fact: Accredited assistance is available at no cost through VSOs and government offices with trained professionals accountable to federal standards.
Relevance to SB 704: The legislation reinforces the role of trusted, free assistance rather than allowing unregulated alternatives.
3. Promises of Higher Ratings Are Misleading
Claim: Companies help veterans obtain higher disability ratings.
Fact: No entity can guarantee a rating increase, and such claims are widely cited as predatory marketing tactics.
Relevance to SB 704: The bill helps prevent misleading claims that could pressure veterans into costly contracts.
4. “Freedom of Choice” Without Safeguards Leads to Harm
Claim: Veterans should be free to hire paid consultants.
Fact: Some contracts require thousands of dollars in fees or a share of future benefits, which can significantly reduce the value of earned compensation.
Relevance to SB 704: The bill ensures consumer protections so veterans are not financially exploited.
5. Documented Harm to Veterans
Claim: The industry fills a harmless gap.
Fact: Reports from veterans organizations and consumer protection officials document financial loss, aggressive sales tactics, and misleading contracts.
Relevance to SB 704: Strengthening protections addresses documented risks rather than hypothetical concerns.
6. Enforcement Gaps Are Being Exploited
Claim: Companies operate legally because enforcement is limited.
Fact: Federal officials have issued warnings to numerous unaccredited firms, demonstrating ongoing compliance concerns.
Relevance to SB 704: The legislation provides clearer standards and enforcement tools at the state level.
Policy Benefits of SB 704
Supporting SB 704 would:
- Protect veterans from excessive fees and misleading contracts
- Reinforce the role of accredited, free assistance
- Align state policy with federal accreditation standards
- Reduce financial exploitation of earned benefits
- Improve transparency and accountability
- Demonstrate West Virginia’s commitment to veterans and their families
2026 Regular Session HB4470 (Judiciary)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 14, 2026 12:20
Please do not pass this proposed legislation. If elections are fair and secure why is this needed for an unknown number of persons affixing a "unique" mark? What if the mark isn't that unique and other very similar marks appear? Could that raise questions? Current election rules make it impossible to identify anyone from a ballot they cast. If a person chose to use a mark on their ballot similar to an owned brand, trademark, logo or other known associative symbol could that possibly lead to identifying a voter? Every ballot for a precinct is then publicly available on a state web site. I personally do not want my ballot published publicly, even if my name or other identifier is not attached to it. Public publication undermines the spirit of keeping my ballot private and election decisions personal.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Pam Gibson on February 14, 2026 11:21
- Please pass this Bill. An innocent young women lost her life because of someone driving drunk on drugs. And where was the punishment in this case. I just don't understand.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Thomas Perkins on February 14, 2026 09:04
I strongly oppose HB 4712 in its current form. While "Baylea's Law" is undoubtedly well-intentioned, the proposed sentencing of 5 to 30 years is excessive and creates a dangerous legal overlap with second-degree murder, which traditionally requires a finding of malice. A more balanced approach would increase the minimum sentence to five years while maintaining the current 15-year maximum, thereby aligning the penalty with existing voluntary manslaughter laws. Furthermore, the proposed fines are disproportionately low for a felony involving a loss of life; instead of a nominal increase to $6,000, the legislature should implement significant financial penalties ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. Under WV Code §61-11A-4, a mandatory portion of these increased funds should be designated as direct restitution to the victim’s estate to provide meaningful support. True reform must also acknowledge that West Virginia lacks a comprehensive statutory Dram Shop Act, forcing victims to rely on the limited criminal provisions of WV Code §60-3A-25. We must hold businesses and inexperienced bartenders accountable for over-serving patrons who may be unaware of their own level of impairment, rather than solely focusing on a punitive 30-year sentence that undermines the rehabilitative purpose of our justice system.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Carol Pettry on February 14, 2026 08:53
Please pass this bill!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tai Honaker on February 14, 2026 08:15
- Please help justice be served in passing this bill.