• Property access and local housing supply
• Agricultural competition
• Mineral and timber market pricing
• Rural tax base stability
• Community development patterns

• Acreage and land use
• Timber value
• Carbon credit and sequestration agreements
• Revenues derived from land
• Tax generation data

• Provide public access standards to ensure transparency benefits citizens
• Establish enforcement penalties for noncompliance
• Address how reported data will prevent harmful land aggregation
• Protect small landowners or family farms from displacement pressures

• Limited housing availability
• Reduced farmland accessibility
• Concentrated mineral and timber control
• Economic dependency on large industrial landholders

• Public database access
• Anti-monopoly safeguards
• Protections for small agricultural producers
• Review of tax equity between large and small landowners

• 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.

• West Virginia Constitution, Article III, § 9
• U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment

• Roads
• Utilities
• Infrastructure

• A widow in bankruptcy may keep equity from unsecured creditors,
• But can still lose the same property for unpaid taxes.

• Rising tax assessments,
• Rent escalation,
• Development pressure,
• Economic displacement without formal eminent domain.

• U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
• West Virginia Constitution, Article III, § 10

• Urban vs rural residents,
• Heirs vs renters,
• Tax-delinquent owners vs bankruptcy filers.

• Protects equity in some contexts,
• While allowing displacement in others,
• Without structural reform addressing tax pressure, zoning inequities, and infrastructure disparities.

• Review of tax foreclosure timelines,
• Transparency in eminent domain necessity determinations,
• Urban displacement protections,
• Heir property clarity reforms.

• existing public adjuster contracts already in force,
• ongoing claim files,
• or disputes already pending.

• mandatory licensing to “act as or hold [oneself] out” as an adjuster (§33-64-2(a))  
• new contract rules and rescission requirements (§33-64-3)  
• new “insured’s rights” notices and conduct rules (§33-64-4)  
• new fiduciary trust-account handling requirements (§33-64-5)  
• new fee/commission limits and conditions (§33-64-6)  

• WV Constitution, Art. III, §4: “No… law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.”  
• U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”  

1. Add an explicit prospective-only clause, such as: “This article applies only to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2026, and does not impair existing contracts or vested rights.” (This directly reduces Contract Clause litigation risk.)  
2. Add a transition/grandfather provision for ongoing claims and existing adjuster engagements so current claims are not disrupted mid-stream.
3. Strengthen consumer financial protection, including re-evaluating whether a $5,000 bond is adequate to cover foreseeable harms.  
4. Require a self-funded implementation model, ensuring staffing/enforcement costs are covered by license fees—not general revenue.

The state of WV was built on the backs of coal miners. As the mines close, the workers are still affected. They have immense chronic pain, and lung conditions that prevent them from consuming the cannabis plant. Not only for pain relief, but for ptsd management. Please allow the production of Edibles in this state, so that we may further help people who have sacrificed their bodies, for our state to grow. Another side of the coin, think about all of the cancer patients that can not consume cannabis easily. These patients have lung cancer, or throat cancer. If they were able to add an edible to their tea, or be able to drink a thc drink. The relief they could feel for a time, would be wonderful for them. It may give them enough encouragement to keep fighting these diseases. My grandma could have used it, she fought for 8 years with various cancers. She didn’t get to see the wonders of cannabis, because she died in 2008, after a doctor told her she was going to die and there was no saving her. It was a harsh reality, and she had no relief, just pills. These pills/chemo through all 8 years ate her alive, she was skin and bones, puking every night. I was in middle school and was with her every night for the last 4 years of her life. She was in agony, and all I could do was rub her back and lay with her on the couch, while she moaned and cried in pain. My grandma deserved relief from her daily torture, but no, the state waited too long to give her a more natural remedy; she died in agony. No one deserves that, no one should be forced to swallow 30 pills a day, just to become addict and overdose. You don’t overdose on cannabis, you consume it, and you eat, that’s a game changer for cancer patients who have lost their appetite. Edibles aren’t for kids or teens just trying to get high, they’re for your grandma with arthritis, your grandpa who just had a hip replacement, your uncle who has black lung from the coal mines, your dad who has a bad back from working construction, and your mom who nearly broke her back caring for you and your constituents.

• 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.

• Broadband access
• Teacher availability
• Course offerings in rural vs. urban districts

• Establish challenging academic standards
• Maintain accountability systems
• Disaggregate data by subgroup (race, income, disability, etc.)

• Clear measurable standards
• Comparable rigor across districts
• Transparent reporting

• Implementation leads to disparate educational opportunity, or
• Students in certain geographic or socioeconomic areas receive reduced access to advanced coursework.

• Computational thinking
• Coding principles
• Cybersecurity fundamentals
• Data literacy

• Establish a uniform statewide assessment standard
• Define minimum instructional benchmarks
• Require transparent county-level reporting
• Ensure equal access to industry credential pathways

I am writing in support of WV House Bill 5403.

This bill represents a meaningful and necessary step toward improving public safety in our state. The facilities currently operating under the existing exemption are, in effect, functioning without appropriate regulatory oversight. We are fortunate that West Virginia has not yet experienced a preventable tragedy associated with these conditions.

The structures in question constitute a clear change in occupancy classification. An exemption originally intended for infrequent, private events, such as a family member’s or neighbor’s wedding, has increasingly been applied to recurring, for-profit assembly uses. When a building functions as an assembly occupancy, it should be subject to the life safety requirements designed for that level of public risk.

Allowing large gatherings without consistent application of fire and life safety standards places the attending public in an unnecessarily vulnerable position. House Bill 5403 helps ensure that regulatory intent aligns with actual use and promotes reasonable safeguards for those who attend these events.

For these reasons, I respectfully support the passage of this bill.

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

This bill will require all classrooms to hang up a poster of the Ten Commandments. I don’t agree with this bill because, it goes against the seperation of religion and state and what if other kids follow a different religion like Hindu, Muslim, Judaism it wouldn’t be fair to them at all.

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed simplification of the financial aid code.

Simplification will make a meaningful difference for both students and financial aid professionals. Clearer, more straightforward financial aid rules will help students and families better understand their aid packages and more easily see that college is affordable and attainable. When the process feels less complicated and more transparent, students are more likely to persist through enrollment and make confident decisions about pursuing higher education.

These changes will also better support our financial aid staff by reducing unnecessary complexity and administrative burden, allowing them to focus more time on advising and direct student support.

At Concord University, our mission is to serve southern West Virginia and expand access to higher education across our region. This proposed simplification aligns directly with that mission by helping us remove barriers and better serve our students who might otherwise see college as out of reach.

As a nurse, I support House Bill 5260 and the inclusion of edible forms of medical cannabis in West Virginia’s medical cannabis program. In my clinical experience, patients have diverse medical needs and tolerances, and no single form of medication works for everyone. Edibles offer a non-inhaled option that can be more appropriate for patients with respiratory conditions, chronic pain, neurological disorders, or difficulty swallowing.

I appreciate that House Bill 5260 establishes clear safety measures, including limits on THC per serving, standardized labeling, child-resistant packaging, and state oversight of products. These safeguards align with responsible medication practices and help ensure patients receive consistent, predictable dosing.

From a healthcare standpoint, expanding access to regulated edible options allows providers and patients to make individualized treatment decisions and may help reduce reliance on higher-risk medications such as opioids or sedatives. This bill represents a patient-centered, safety-focused improvement to West Virginia’s medical cannabis program.

I encourage lawmakers to support House Bill 5260 in the interest of patient safety, access, and evidence-based care.

As a veteran, I strongly support House Bill 5260 and the inclusion of edible forms of medical cannabis in West Virginia’s medical program. Many veterans live with chronic pain, PTSD, anxiety, sleep disorders, and service-related injuries that make daily life difficult. Edibles provide a non-smokable, discreet, and longer-lasting option that can be especially helpful for managing symptoms overnight or when other forms are not appropriate.

I appreciate that this bill includes strict safeguards such as limits on THC per serving, clear labeling, child-resistant packaging, and oversight by the state. These regulations ensure that edibles remain a responsible medical option and not a risk to public safety.

Veterans should have access to the full range of medically appropriate cannabis products so we can choose what works best for our individual conditions. Allowing regulated edibles gives veterans another tool to reduce reliance on opioids and other medications that often come with serious side effects.

Please support House Bill 5260 and continue improving access to safe, effective medical cannabis options for West Virginia’s veterans.

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.

To the Honorable Members of the West Virginia House Education Committee:

On behalf of New River Community & Technical College and President Copenhaver, I respectfully submit this statement in support of House Bill 5212 during your consideration of this important legislation.

HB 5212 represents a thoughtful set of reforms to West Virginia’s higher education grant and workforce development programs. The bill modernizes key provisions governing financial aid, scholarship, and loan programs that directly impact access to postsecondary education for students across our state. Notably, the bill:

• Strengthens Workforce Alignment: By revising and expanding grant and scholarship structures, HB 5212 enhances the state’s ability to connect education to in-demand workforce needs — a priority our college shares in preparing students for careers that contribute to West Virginia’s economic growth.

• Supports Student Access & Flexibility: The legislation updates eligibility definitions and incorporates flexible options that better accommodate part-time learners and those pursuing workforce training opportunities.

• Incentivizes Partnerships: By promoting collaborative program development and encouraging educational partnerships with employers, the bill fosters an environment in which community and technical colleges can innovate and respond rapidly to employer needs.

These reforms align with New River CTC’s mission to provide accessible, affordable, quality education, and workforce programs to meet the needs of the region it serves. We believe HB 5212 will help strengthen West Virginia’s higher education system and foster opportunities that benefit students, communities, and employers alike.

We urge the Committee to give HB 5212 favorable consideration.

Respectfully submitted,                                                                                                                                                                Michael Green, Chief of Staff on behalf of President Copenhaver
New River Community & Technical College

• 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.

• Students are no longer competing under the same rules.
• Eligibility can vary by cohort rather than merit.
• Families lose the ability to plan based on known requirements.
• The system risks favoring some students while excluding others who met prior expectations.

• 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.

• W. Va. Code § 27-5-7(c) presently requires evaluation of dangerousness by a mental hygiene commissioner before involuntary treatment orders; HB 5370 removes this procedural safeguard by permitting a mandatory hold prior to any formal evaluation.
• Involuntary confinement absent individualized findings of imminent risk of harm raises serious due-process concerns analogous to standards enunciated in Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), requiring clear and convincing evidence before civil commitment.

• There is no requirement that an impartial decision-maker determine that the individual poses a present danger to self or others before confinement.
• Neither W. Va. Code § 27-5-8 (emergency admission criteria) nor subsequent sections provide a judicial review mechanism prior to or during the mandatory hold.

• W. Va. Code §§ 27-5-1 et seq. establish explicit criteria for involuntary admission — including “danger to self or others” — which are absent from the proposed 24-hour hold.
• Rewriting these standards through emergency holds without clearly defined thresholds undermines the legislative framework and creates parallel detention authority not contemplated by existing law.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and SAMHSA explicitly recognize that stigma is a barrier to treatment and recovery. When law itself treats individuals with SUD as categorically dangerous, it reinforces prejudicial attitudes that deter help-seeking.
• Empirical studies show that involuntary treatment models are less effective than voluntary, evidence-based models in achieving long-term recovery outcomes.

• Individuals at risk or in need of care may avoid disclosing symptoms or risk factors to professionals for fear of involuntary confinement.
• This undermines the success of preventative and collaborative interventions embodied in West Virginia’s broader behavioral health policies.

1. Reject HB 5370 in its current form; OR
2. Amend it to include:
   • Objective statutory criteria requiring clear evidence of imminent danger before hold is authorized;
   • Prompt judicial review prior to or within 24 hours of detention;
   • Explicit protections for voluntary care pathways;
   • Language that avoids presuming dangerousness solely based on health conditions.

1. Lack of clear direct benefit to West Virginians: During legislative hearings, several members of the West Virginia House and Senate expressed concern that high-voltage transmission lines discussed in committee would not benefit electricity customers or the state economy. When asked if the projects would provide local benefits, presenters could not provide specific answers, and producers of these transmission lines acknowledged that no West Virginia substations were included in some proposed routes, meaning power could simply pass through the state to other markets.  
2. Potential increased costs for ratepayers: Legislators referenced independent analysis suggesting that transmission projects could increase West Virginia electric bills by hundreds of millions of dollars without commensurate improvements in reliability or local economic return.  These costs risk being passed directly to consumers via utility rate mechanisms, while the associated tax and regulatory treatment from HB 5359 could further ease cost recovery for developers.
3. Disconnect between surplus generation and local electricity cost improvements: Recent reporting found that despite West Virginia’s surplus generation capacity, resident households still pay higher average electricity bills than the national average, largely because export-oriented projects and long-distance lines do not address local distribution inefficiencies.  
4. Lack of substations and measurable in-state economic impact: One key concern raised by lawmakers is that some long transmission corridors (e.g., the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link) would carry power through West Virginia without building substations or creating significant in-state economic development — leaving ratepayers to shoulder costs without local economic returns.