Public Comments

Please vote no on 4600. This bill makes it more difficult for those who depend on USPS to mail ballots, especially since the change/confusion over postmark versus arrival. Seniors and military may be unaware of USPS changes and depend on mailing their ballot Thank You Olga Gioulis Sutton

House Bill 4712

This should especially be the case if the person who made the decision to drive under the influence while under the legal age to drink alcohol, with illegal drugs on top of it, caused a fatality.

I have a Christian friend that is cousin to Baylea and the family is devastated.  Destiny  the drunk driver her mom gave her the alcohol at the bar and that wasn't the first time she bragged about drinking on Instagram and did not care. I think Destiny the drunk driver should get 30 years to life in prison for what she did she never so remorse people like that should never get out of jail.

 

• Add youth-safety protections
• Require background checks or abuse-prevention training
• Strengthen mandatory reporting requirements
• Clarify exclusions when the athletic official is the aggressor

• W. Va. Code §61-2-8 (sexual assault and abuse)
• W. Va. Code §61-2-14 (child abuse and neglect)
• W. Va. Code §49-2-803 (mandatory reporting of child abuse)

• Enhanced penalties apply automatically based on the injured party’s role as a “coach”
• Law enforcement may default to treating the coach as the victim
• A minor acting in lawful self-defense may be charged first and forced to assert self-defense later

• Reduced credibility compared to adult authority figures
• Power imbalances in reporting and investigation
• Fear of retaliation or disbelief

• Chilling minors from defending themselves
• Discouraging reporting of misconduct
• Reinforcing unsafe power asymmetries in youth sports

• Explicitly exempt lawful self-defense
• Clarify that enhanced penalties do not apply when the official is the aggressor
• Pair protections with mandatory reporting, training, or oversight requirements

• Verify compliance with existing election law;
• Require pre-election inspection of tabulation equipment;
• Increase transparency through public reporting of audit results.

1. Limited Scope of Audits The bill requires random audits of a percentage of machines in a minimum number of counties. While this is a step forward, it does not guarantee statewide verification. Partial audits may fail to detect isolated non-compliance.
2. Lack of Uniform Audit Standards HB 5236 does not clearly define:
   • How inspections must be conducted;
   • What technical standards determine compliance; or
   • What corrective actions are required if violations are found. Uniform statewide procedures are necessary to prevent inconsistent enforcement across counties.
4. Accountability and Enforcement Gaps While the bill prohibits the use of non-compliant equipment, it does not clearly specify:
   • Timelines for remediation;
   • Oversight consequences for repeat failures; or
   • Independent verification beyond the Secretary of State’s office.
6. Public Trust Context In the aftermath of documented nationwide attempts to challenge certified election results following the 2020 election—despite those efforts failing—election legislation must prioritize consistency, transparency, and enforceable safeguards to maintain public confidence. Incremental oversight improvements should not rely solely on discretionary or limited review mechanisms.

• Clear statewide audit standards;
• Broader or more comprehensive verification;
• Defined enforcement and remediation requirements.

• The First Amendment protects verbal criticism, raised voices, and offensive speech unless it constitutes true threats or narrowly defined “fighting words.”
• The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective enforcement based on identity, demeanor, or perceived social acceptability.

• Independent civilian oversight,
• Mandatory constitutional-rights training,
• Clear reporting and badge-identification requirements,
• Enforceable misconduct consequences,

• Documentation of civilian complaints,
• Protections against retaliatory enforcement,
• Uniform treatment of speech regardless of viewpoint,
• Compliance audits tied to receipt of public funds.

• Delegates voting-equipment security policies to county officials without mandating uniform statewide standards
• Does not require independent audits, public reporting of testing results, or third-party verification
• Relies primarily on submission of policies to the Secretary of State, rather than enforceable consistency across counties

• Establish uniform statewide standards
• Require independent audits and public transparency
• Strengthen, not dilute, centralized oversight

• In Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), the Court upheld a narrow buffer-zone restriction, emphasizing the need for precision.
• In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Court struck down a polling-place speech restriction because it lacked objective, workable standards and allowed arbitrary enforcement.

• “express advocacy”
• “ballot issue information”
• “soliciting”

• Article III, §7 – guarantees freedom of speech and press
• Article III, §16 – guarantees due process of law

• Fail to give fair notice
• Encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement

• Selective enforcement
• Viewpoint discrimination
• Unequal treatment of voters based on political belief, appearance, or issue advocacy

1. A compelling governmental interest
2. Narrow tailoring
3. Use of the least restrictive means available

• Maintain order at polling places
• Prevent intimidation or interference
• Address election misconduct

• U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
• U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
• West Virginia Constitution, Article III, §§7 and 16

• demonstrated parental capacity,
• actual harm or risk to the child,
• compliance with court-ordered improvement periods, and
• medically informed evaluations.

• preserve judicial discretion,
• explicitly protect lawful medical treatment and medical cannabis use,
• require a proven nexus between substance use and neglect or danger, and
• prevent financial incentives from influencing child welfare outcomes.

• Repeal or revision of ordinances
• Significant legal defense costs
• Exposure to attorney-fee awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act)

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – civil liability for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law
• Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection Clause, if enforcement is selective or discriminatory

• Content-neutral
• Narrowly tailored
• The least restrictive means available

• Disorderly conduct
• Harassment
• Trespass
• Traffic and pedestrian safety statutes

• Federal litigation
• Court-ordered damages
• Mandatory attorney-fee payments

• Low-income individuals
• People experiencing homelessness
• Veterans
• Individuals with disabilities

I think this very appropriate so many of our loved ones not in just boone county has either lost their life mainly do to intoxicated drivers because they are careless just like bayleas life being lost so with that being said I personally stand behind bayleas law I have lost so many loved ones do to intoxicated drivers so please pass this law and just maybe bayleas law will make a difference and bring those numbers down of intoxicated drivers causing death will come down those numbers are increasing and we need them to decrease because even being 50 is way to high of a number if your drinking you should always have a backup and if not call your local nonemergency to give a lift home with out getting in trouble just like if you call about a od or if you narcan someone without getting in trouble all police stations need to share to always call for a lift even if it anit a holiday in order to support bayleas law.

• Irresponsible firearm handling and escalation by legislators and officials nationwide
• Increased tensions in schools, legislative buildings, and workplaces
• Confusion during emergencies when multiple armed individuals are present, increasing the likelihood of misidentification and accidental harm

• Escalates situations that could otherwise be resolved through de-escalation or standard security protocols
• Raises the risk of accidental discharge, misuse, or wrongful use of force
• Blurs the line between civilian employment and law enforcement authority
• Increases liability exposure for the state despite statutory immunity language

• Clear role boundaries
• Professional, centralized law-enforcement response
• De-escalation training and secure facilities
• Accountability and transparency

• enforceable contaminant limits for PFAS, PCBs, nitrates, and disinfection byproducts,
• corporate liability and mandatory cleanup for industrial contamination,
• transparent enforcement by WVDEP with meaningful penalties for repeat violators, and
• protections for residents harmed by pollution, not increased punishment for those already living with its consequences.

• mandatory safety training,
• clear anti-intimidation protocols for public areas,
• or enforcement standards for weapon handling in a tense political environment.

• Decisions become unreviewable
• Nepotism and conflicts of interest are harder to detect or prove
• Selective enforcement becomes more likely
• Financial or political incentives can improperly influence outcomes
• Public trust in government institutions erodes

1. Require written findings citing specific evidence
2. Identify the statutory basis for any override
3. Create a record subject to audit and judicial review
4. Establish clear consequences for undocumented or improper decisions