1. No Added Due Process Protections The bill does not expand procedural safeguards for appellants. It does not clarify standards of review, evidentiary thresholds, or ensure heightened protections where professional certification or licensure is implicated.
2. Executive Branch Concentration The Office of Administrative Hearings remains within the executive branch structure. The bill does not establish additional independence measures for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), nor does it address appointment, removal, or oversight mechanisms to ensure impartiality.
3. No Transparency Enhancements HB 5450 does not require publication of appeal outcomes, reporting of reversal rates, or public access to decision data. Without transparency metrics, structural relocation alone does not guarantee improved fairness.
4. No Remedy for Potential Systemic Bias If concerns exist regarding investigative practices, referral standards, or internal enforcement discretion, those issues are not addressed by this bill. Changing jurisdiction does not resolve underlying structural inequities if they exist.
5. No Fiscal or Efficiency Justification Provided The bill does not clearly demonstrate that transferring appeals to OAH will reduce costs, improve timelines, or enhance consistency. Without measurable performance benchmarks, the Legislature cannot evaluate whether this change produces material improvement.

1. A public performance audit under W. Va. Code §4-2-5 (Legislative Auditor authority),
2. Clear standards for registration and certification under the Office of Health Facility Licensure and Certification,
3. Transparent reporting requirements for any facility receiving state funds or court referrals, and
4. Enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance.

1. Lack of Clear Emergency Criteria: Current law allows emergency declarations when conditions are found to exist that “warrant” the proclamation. There is no objective standard in the statute or this bill requiring publicly accessible documentation justifying such declarations. Without clear benchmarks, emergency authority can be invoked unevenly or without sufficient empirical basis.
2. Transparency and Public Reporting: This bill restructures the emergency response commission but does not require regular public reporting of its actions, emergency triggers, or performance measures. Given West Virginia’s recent experiences with environmental and public health issues — including challenges in public communication of contamination risks — transparent reporting should be mandatory, not optional.
3. Potential for “Reactive” Rather Than “Preventative” Governance: Emergency declarations are inherently reactive. Without strengthening preventive oversight — e.g., requiring hazard risk assessments or public accessibility of monitoring data — there is a risk that emergencies will be used to address problems that could have been mitigated through stronger regulation and enforcement.
4. Interactions with Other Regulatory and Oversight Structures: This bill does not consider how emergency governance interacts with evolving state policies related to environmental regulation, corporate incentives, infrastructure oversight, or public disclosure. The absence of explicit connection points between emergency governance and other oversight bodies increases the likelihood of siloed decision-making and insufficient checks on authority.

• Objective criteria and documentation for emergency declarations (with a public record).
• Periodic reporting to the Legislature and citizens on emergency preparedness, declarations, and responses.
• Independent commissioners or public health/oversight representation on the State Emergency Response Commission.
• Clear public access to monitoring data and emergency response actions.

1. Define “judicial warrant” clearly as a warrant issued by a federal or state court upon probable cause and signed by a judge or magistrate. This ensures administrative warrants are not mistakenly treated as judicial orders.
2. Include a data minimization requirement stating that agencies shall only disclose the specific information identified in the warrant and no broader datasets. This prevents overcollection or fishing expeditions.
3. Clarify that nothing in this section prohibits communication of immigration or citizenship status when required by federal law, ensuring the bill remains consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and avoids unnecessary legal conflict.
4. Strengthen transparency reporting requirements by requiring agencies to distinguish between judicial warrants and other requests, and to report the number of denials based on lack of warrant. Transparency promotes accountability and public trust.

• Frequent users,
• Chronic medical users, or
• Patients consuming high-THC formulations.

• Lawful medical cannabis patients could face DUI charges based predominantly on residual THC levels,
• Without evidence of actual driving impairment, and
• Without adequate statutory guidance discouraging reliance solely on nanogram levels.

• A threshold of 3 ng/mL THC can lead to a DUI charge under impaired driving laws,
• There is no comparable per se drug threshold for many other legally prescribed medications with impairing potential.  

• Require measurable compliance improvements tied to intake/screening/investigation standards highlighted by the OIG audit.  
• Require timely public fatality disclosure consistent with §49-5-101(e) (clear minimum dataset and deadlines).  
• Strengthen/standardize Critical Incident Review reporting and public-facing summaries under §61-12B.  

• W. Va. Code § 61-3-20 (Embezzlement)
• W. Va. Code § 61-3-13 (Larceny)

• Mandatory public financial reporting
• Independent audit requirements
• Clear State Auditor review authority under W. Va. Code § 12-4-14 and § 12-4-17
• Defined internal controls and record retention
• Jurisdiction that survives resignation

• West Virginia Constitution, Article XII, §1, requiring a “thorough and efficient system of free schools.”
• U.S. Constitution, First Amendment (Establishment Clause), prohibiting government endorsement of religion.
• Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection and due process.
• Federal civil rights statutes including Title VI and Title IX.

• Engel v. Vitale – State-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.
• Abington School District v. Schempp – Mandatory Bible readings in public schools violate the Establishment Clause.
• Stone v. Graham – Posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms without a clear secular purpose is unconstitutional.

1. Politicizing education governance.
2. Destabilizing long-term academic planning.
3. Creating volatility in curriculum standards.
4. Undermining compliance with federal funding requirements.
5. Exposing counties to costly constitutional litigation.

• A lawful oath,
• A materially false statement,
• Made knowingly and willfully.

• Are predictive estimates,
• Rely on modeling assumptions,
• Are not traditionally given under oath,
• Often involve discretionary economic projections.

• Assumptions,
• Forecasting models,
• Inflation projections,
• Behavioral estimates,
• Federal funding contingencies.

• Acceptable methodologies,
• Disclosure of assumptions,
• Margin of error thresholds,
• Independent review processes,

• Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (void for vagueness doctrine).

• Chill executive participation,
• Encourage defensive over-estimation,
• Interfere with interbranch legislative analysis.

• Competing economic theories,
• Differences in actuarial assumptions,
• Evolving federal reimbursement policies,
• Market volatility.

• Political pressure risks,
• Disincentives for candid fiscal evaluation,
• Unequal application of enforcement.

• W. Va. Code § 61-5-5 (false swearing),
• W. Va. Code § 6B-2-5 (Ethics Act misuse of office),
• Administrative discipline,
• Removal procedures under existing law.

• Clear statutory definitions of “materially misleading” in the context of predictive modeling.
• Mandatory disclosure of modeling assumptions.
• Defined safe-harbor provisions for good-faith estimation.
• Independent fiscal review mechanisms before criminal referral.
• Explicit exclusion for reasonable methodological disagreements.

I would like to share a real story - not a statistic. I’m writing as someone who has seen firsthand how a person can change over decades.

One of my childhood friends and high school classmates (Keyser High School class of 1993) was sentenced at age 18 to life in prison and has now spent more than thirty years behind bars in West Virginia. While the rest of us grew up — building families, careers, and purpose — his entire adulthood has taken place inside a correctional facility.

Over those decades, he did not give up. He pursued education, completed faith-based coursework, strengthened his communication and academic skills, and became known for discipline, leadership, and accountability. He accepts responsibility for the harm he caused and does not minimize it. He is not the same person he was as a teenager.

House Bill 4758 concerns me because it moves policy toward longer time served before a person can even be considered for parole review, particularly for life and first-degree murder sentences. Delaying review does not guarantee greater safety — but it does remove an important mechanism for evaluating whether someone has truly changed after decades of demonstrated accountability and rehabilitation.

Parole review does not guarantee release. It provides a structured, professional evaluation of whether a person is safe and appropriate to return to society. Preserving that review process supports both accountability and public safety.

Justice should be firm, but it should also be wise enough to recognize growth and rehabilitation over time.

I respectfully urge you to vote NO on House Bill 4758.

Please support Second Look and allow people like my childhood friend and classmate to be evaluated for who they are today, not only who they were as teenagers. People can grow, accountability can endure, and justice should be wise enough to see both.

I completely disagree with this bill. No one that is not in the military or a police officer should own a machine gun. By indroducing this, it is possible for it to turn into a real bill. Which is not only putting so many civilans in danger, but also allowing way more public shootings to happen. No civilan should even own a machine gun, no matter what it is used for. If it were to end up in the wrong persons hands, many people could be hurt or even die. This bill can not pass in order to keep people and the community safe.

As a West Virginian who is currently attending school out of state, I strongly support the Hansen and Hornbuckle amendment to House Bill 4600.

I may be fortunate enough to sometimes afford a plane ticket to return home and vote in person. But my situation does not represent most students from West Virginia, especially those from rural and low-income communities.

Imagine a student from McDowell County who earns admission to a top school like Stanford, MIT, Harvard, or one of our nation’s service academies. That opportunity is life-changing, but it also creates new barriers. That student may not be able to afford a plane ticket home. Their parents may not be able to take time off work or drive hours to pick them up from the airport. They may not own a car at all.

Even students who attend excellent institutions closer to home, like Vanderbilt, UVA, or UPenn, face similar challenges. Many do not have reliable transportation, flexible schedules, or the financial resources to travel home just to vote. For these students, returning home to vote is not realistic.

Mail-in voting should be the solution. However, under the new language of the bill, absentee ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day to be counted. There is no longer any flexibility for ballots that are mailed on time but delayed in transit.

Students who live out of state rely on campus mailrooms and long-distance postal routes. Mail delays are common and unpredictable. I have personally received letters days, even weeks, late because they were misplaced or delayed. Under this new rule, even one unexpected delay could mean a student’s vote is never counted, no matter how responsibly they acted.

During the discussion, Delegate Hillenbrand suggested that students could rely on their professors to allow late assignments or rescheduled exams so they could travel home to vote. While I respect that perspective, our right to vote should not depend on a professor’s leniency.

Not every student has flexible instructors. Many are in programs with strict attendance policies, clinical hours, labs, or exams that cannot be rescheduled. Others are already under heavy stress trying to balance coursework, jobs, and family responsibilities. For these students, being told to “just work it out” forces them to choose between their education and their right to vote.

That is how disenfranchisement happens, not through a single rule, but through a system that assumes everyone has the same flexibility and resources.

The Hansen and Hornbuckle amendment corrects this inequity. It recognizes that students who are away from their home counties for education still deserve a fair and realistic opportunity to vote. It ensures that students are not punished for choosing to better themselves and that their voices are still heard in the communities they call home.

This amendment is not about partisanship. It is about fairness, access, and protecting the fundamental right to vote for every West Virginian, no matter where they are studying.

1. Who We Are and Why We Are Commenting

1. What Felony Murder Is, and Why It Matters for West Virginians

1. What These Bills Would Do

1. Longer Sentences Do Not Improve Public Safety

1. Why These Bills Are Especially Concerning in Felony Murder Cases

1. Who We Are and Why We Are Commenting

1. What Felony Murder Is, and Why It Matters for West Virginians

1. What These Bills Would Do

1. Longer Sentences Do Not Improve Public Safety

1. Why These Bills Are Especially Concerning in Felony Murder Cases

1. Who We Are and Why We Are Commenting

1. What Felony Murder Is, and Why It Matters for West Virginians

1. What These Bills Would Do

1. Longer Sentences Do Not Improve Public Safety

1. Why These Bills Are Especially Concerning in Felony Murder Cases

HB-5413 consolidates multiple payment deadlines into a single window, moves fee payment directly to the West Virginia State Police, and clarifies that individuals subject to both the Central Abuse Registry and the Sexual Offense Registry pay only one $125 fee—not a duplicative charge.

These changes reduce confusion, improve compliance, and mitigate litigation risk caused by ambiguous and duplicative fee requirements. While HB-5413 does not fully resolve the underlying constitutional concerns associated with registry fees, it represents a rational and responsible improvement over existing law.

WVRSOL urges lawmakers to support HB-5413 as a necessary corrective step.

• resolve possession disputes,
• establish equitable defenses in land cases,
• and reduce chaos in long-running boundary/title conflicts.

• HB 5027 (use of property taken by eminent domain) keeps the “public use” list and includes language stating that “public use” may not be construed primarily for private economic development, and that property may not be taken for economic development that results in transfer of control to a private entity (with an urban-renewal “slum/blight” carve-out).  
• HB 4550 requires the condemning applicant to provide its appraisal to landowners with the initial offer in eminent domain negotiations.  
• HB 4499 proposes enhanced compensation—twice fair market value—plus damages to remaining property, and applies it broadly across condemnors.  

• imperfect titles,
• generational transfer issues,
• boundary uncertainties,
• and informal occupancy arrangements.

• repeated court appearances,
• prolonged supervision,
• risk of contempt findings if non-compliance is deemed “willful,” and
• extended legal control over parents and students.

• attend public meetings,
• advocate for policy change,
• challenge school or government practices,
• or participate meaningfully in local governance.

• lack of school transportation,
• rural distance to schools,
• disability or medical needs,
• housing instability,
• caregiving responsibilities,
• or approved alternative education arrangements.

• low-income families,
• rural households,
• families already interacting with courts or state agencies,
• and communities historically subject to higher levels of surveillance and enforcement.

• It would remove existing criminal penalties for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without a permit for people age 18–20.  
• It amends current sections of the West Virginia Code (§61-7-3, §61-7-6, §61-7-7) to expand concealed carry eligibility to include younger adults.  

1. Public safety concerns: Expanding concealed carry without a permit to individuals as young as 18 removes a licensing and vetting requirement for a demographic with less life experience and, statistically, higher rates of risky behavior, which could increase accidental shootings or confrontational uses of deadly force.
2. Training and accountability: Current law’s permit process includes safety training and background checks. Eliminating or bypassing this for 18- to 20-year-olds reduces incentives for standardized firearm safety education.
3. Potential law enforcement challenges: Law enforcement officers rely on distinctions in licensing to assess risk and enforce weapons laws. Broadening unlicensed carry creates ambiguity that may complicate policing and increase dangerous encounters.
4. Risk of escalation: Concealed carry without permitting may lead to more armed escalations in disputes that could otherwise be de-escalated, particularly among younger adults.

1. Public Participation & Intimidation Allowing firearms in legislative spaces risks chilling constitutionally protected activity. Citizens should not have to assess whether armed individuals are present before deciding whether to testify, attend a hearing, or petition their representatives. Even lawful carry can have an intimidating effect in high-conflict political settings.
2. Lack of Preventive Safeguards These bills typically rely on after-the-fact criminal statutes (such as brandishing or breach of peace) rather than preventive standards, such as:
   • mandatory training for Capitol-specific environments,
   • clear conduct rules for legislative spaces,
   • defined enforcement authority for Capitol Police,
   • or uniform screening and security protocols.
4. Security & Enforcement Conflicts Expanding carry without clear operational rules places Capitol Police and security staff in an untenable position—forced to distinguish lawful from unlawful behavior in real time during protests, hearings, or emergencies, increasing the risk of escalation rather than safety.
5. Redundancy Without Public Benefit West Virginia already recognizes firearm rights broadly. Expanding carry into the Capitol does not address a demonstrated safety failure, nor does it solve an identified problem. Instead, it introduces new risks in a space designed for democratic participation, not armed presence.
6. Inconsistency with Government Neutrality The Capitol should remain a place where government power is exercised through law and debate—not through the implicit presence of weapons. Maintaining firearm restrictions in legislative spaces supports neutrality, accessibility, and public trust.

• people who do not own cars,
• individuals without reliable access to public transportation,
• low-income residents,
• disabled pedestrians,
• elderly residents,
• and people who rely on walking for daily necessities such as work, medical care, groceries, and childcare.

• identifying where sidewalks and safe pedestrian paths do not exist,
• investing in pedestrian infrastructure,
• and adopting context-sensitive standards that reflect real conditions on the ground.

• Unequal application of privacy protections The bill prioritizes privacy for legislators and certain officials without extending equivalent safeguards to ordinary residents, including victims of domestic violence, stalking, or retaliation, who often face similar or greater risks.
• Chilling effect on transparency and oversight By expanding civil liability for disclosure, the bill risks discouraging lawful reporting, investigative journalism, and public-interest disclosures that rely on accurate identification of public officials acting in their official capacity.
• Expansion of liability beyond government agencies The bill extends restrictions to private individuals and organizations, increasing the risk of litigation even where information is obtained lawfully, shared for public-interest purposes, or already accessible through public records.
• Lack of clear guardrails and exemptions The bill does not sufficiently distinguish between malicious disclosure (doxxing, harassment) and legitimate uses such as accountability reporting, ethics investigations, or civic advocacy.

• workers exposed years earlier,
• individuals misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed,
• rural residents with limited access to occupational specialists.

• improve exposure reporting,
• fund medical monitoring,
• enhance workplace safety enforcement,
• or reduce asbestos or silica exposure.

• patients and families,
• Medicaid and public health systems,
• disability and social-service programs,

• Threshold for Placement on the Registry

•  Nature and Purpose of the Registry

•  Information Collected from Registrants

•  Public Disclosure and Community Notification

•  Duration of Registration

•  Enforcement and Penalties

•  Retroactive vs. Prospective Application (NEW)

•  Key distinctions
  • HB-5341 & HB-5368 expressly impose new legal obligations based solely on pre-enactment convictions, leaving little room for judicial narrowing.
  • HB-5253 operates prospectively, even though it considers prior convictions to determine whether the threshold is met.
•  Structural and Policy Takeaway
  • HB-5341
    • Broadest registry, lowest threshold, explicit retroactivity, and public exposure.
  • HB-5368
    • Moderated scope (repeat offenders) but identical retroactive and public-registry structure.
  • HB-5253
    • Fundamentally different model: prospective, confidential, inquiry-based, and limited to chronic offenders.

• Threshold for Placement on the Registry

•  Nature and Purpose of the Registry

•  Information Collected from Registrants

•  Public Disclosure and Community Notification

•  Duration of Registration

•  Enforcement and Penalties

•  Retroactive vs. Prospective Application (NEW)

•  Key distinctions
  • HB-5341 & HB-5368 expressly impose new legal obligations based solely on pre-enactment convictions, leaving little room for judicial narrowing.
  • HB-5253 operates prospectively, even though it considers prior convictions to determine whether the threshold is met.
•  Structural and Policy Takeaway
  • HB-5341
    • Broadest registry, lowest threshold, explicit retroactivity, and public exposure.
  • HB-5368
    • Moderated scope (repeat offenders) but identical retroactive and public-registry structure.
  • HB-5253
    • Fundamentally different model: prospective, confidential, inquiry-based, and limited to chronic offenders.

• Threshold for Placement on the Registry

•  Nature and Purpose of the Registry

•  Information Collected from Registrants

•  Public Disclosure and Community Notification

•  Duration of Registration

•  Enforcement and Penalties

•  Retroactive vs. Prospective Application (NEW)

•  Key distinctions
  • HB-5341 & HB-5368 expressly impose new legal obligations based solely on pre-enactment convictions, leaving little room for judicial narrowing.
  • HB-5253 operates prospectively, even though it considers prior convictions to determine whether the threshold is met.
•  Structural and Policy Takeaway
  • HB-5341
    • Broadest registry, lowest threshold, explicit retroactivity, and public exposure.
  • HB-5368
    • Moderated scope (repeat offenders) but identical retroactive and public-registry structure.
  • HB-5253
    • Fundamentally different model: prospective, confidential, inquiry-based, and limited to chronic offenders.

• Creates a public, searchable animal abuse database maintained by the WV State Police
• Requires automatic inclusion upon conviction or plea
• Imposes a $125 annual fee, enforceable via judgment lien
• Directs collected fees to the WV State Police Criminal Justice Information Services Fund

1. No Public Safety Benefit

• Registries do not deter crime; decades of empirical research confirm this
• Animals cannot access registry information
• Public access serves no preventive function

2. Public Shaming as Policy

• The registry’s primary effect is reputational punishment after sentence completion
• Increases the risk of harassment and vigilantism
• Mirrors failed sex-offense registry models

3. Revenue Generation + Litigation Risk

• Annual fees and lien enforcement replicate structures already under federal constitutional challenge
• Expands state exposure to §1983 civil-rights litigation

4. Constitutional Concerns

• Potential ex post facto violations if applied retroactively
• Ongoing public burdens constitute punitive effects under established case law
• Violates Article III, Section 4 of the WV Constitution

• Reject HB-5176 as drafted
• If considered further, remove the public registry and fee provisions

Baylea’s law should be passed to more righteously punish the evil of those who are willing to selfishly and carelessly endanger other peoples’ lives, possibly resulting in death. It actually happens as in the case of Baylea Craig. This should be dealt with similarly to murder, and may God grant that a stricter sentence and the publishing of that sentence to the public will cause some to rethink drinking and driving.