Public Comments

Please pass this. Someone who chooses to make this selfish decision of driving under the influence, should be held accountable. A family will never get to see their loved one again.

This should be passed.

I think it is about time they start holding people accountable for there actions.

I think this is a great law, and could potentially save lives being taken from impaired drivers.

Last year, our community lost Baylea—a life full of promise, cut short by the preventable and reckless choice of an individual to drive under the influence. Baylea isn’t just a name on a legal document; she represents a daughter, a friend, and a future that was stolen. Her death was not an "accident"; it was the direct result of a conscious decision to disregard the safety of others. Why We Need Baylea’s Law Current penalties for DUI offenses often fail to reflect the gravity of the devastation caused. To honor Baylea and protect other families from this unspeakable grief, we are calling for the passage of Baylea’s Law, which mandates: • Doubling Jail Time: To ensure the punishment acts as a true deterrent and reflects the value of the lives put at risk. • Doubling Fines: To hold offenders financially accountable and fund much-needed education and victim support services.

3 years isn’t enough time for someone to make poor decisions and take an innocent life.

Have a nephew that suffered a TBI & other physical injuries due to a drunk driver broadsiding the car he was in.  That was 40+ years ago.  Never has led a normal life since!!! 😡

I support this legislation 110%. Please pass Baylea’s law to prevent, protect and hold impaired drivers accountable for their actions if they cause death behind the wheel.

I oppose HB 5095. This bill creates a refundable tax credit of up to $6,000 for individuals and licensed automobile dealers who donate or sell vehicles through a qualified charitable organization. Refundable credits reduce state revenue even when no tax is owed, making this program a use of public funds, not private charity. If this program is framed as a “donation,” attaching a refundable tax credit fundamentally changes its nature. Once financial compensation is provided, the transaction is no longer purely charitable — it becomes a state-subsidized exchange. Public funds are being used to reimburse donors rather than directly assist the individuals in need of transportation. HB 5095 directs the tax benefit to donors and dealers, not to the low-income residents who ultimately receive the vehicles. Those most affected by transportation barriers do not receive the credit or direct financial assistance under this bill. Transportation access is a systemic workforce and infrastructure issue, particularly in a largely rural state with limited public transit. Addressing that issue through tax incentives for private donations shifts responsibility away from direct public investment and accountability, while reducing state revenue that could otherwise support broad-based services. At a time when many West Virginians are experiencing economic hardship and the state faces ongoing demands for healthcare, infrastructure, and public services, prioritizing refundable tax credits for private transactions raises serious concerns about fiscal priorities, equity, and effectiveness. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5095.

For a community, a family, and a beautiful life that was taken too soon.

#justicefoebaylea

I wanted to my opinion on supporting the Bailey’s law that was introduced this week on doubling the fines of DUI that caused death. making this change will not only make someone think twice about driving out under the influence, but also if they’re close friends, or loved ones of letting them do so. laws are meant to prevent any harm and sometimes things need to be adjusted accordingly, if there is no change, and this is one of those things in my opinion. Thank you for your time.

I oppose HB 5094 as introduced because, while it appears to restrict private prisons, it fails to meaningfully address profit-driven incarceration and detention practices in West Virginia and leaves significant loopholes that undermine public accountability, civil rights, and fiscal responsibility. 1. The bill does not end profit from incarceration HB 5094 prohibits private ownership or operation of prisons, but it does not prohibit public facilities from contracting with private vendors or federal agencies for detention services. This allows profit incentives to persist through: •Service contracts, •Bed-per-head payment structures, •Federal detention agreements, including immigration detention. As written, the bill restricts form—not function—and does not eliminate financial incentives that encourage expanded detention or prolonged confinement. 2. No limits on ICE or federal detention contracts HB 5094 does not prohibit state or regional jails from housing federal detainees, including individuals held under civil immigration authority. This means: •Local jails may continue to profit from federal detention contracts, •Civil detainees may be housed in criminal facilities, •Oversight gaps remain regarding due process, conditions, and length of detention. If the intent is to prevent profit-based incarceration, failing to address federal detention contracts is a major omission. 3. Expands administrative control without public oversight The bill places approval authority with the Regional Jail Authority but does not add transparency requirements, such as: •Public reporting of contracts, •Disclosure of per-diem rates, •Conditions standards, •Civil-rights compliance audits. Without these safeguards, decisions affecting incarceration and detention remain insulated from public review. 4. No protections for detainees’ rights or conditions HB 5094 does not establish: •Minimum conditions standards, •Independent inspections, •Medical or mental-health protections, •Civil-rights enforcement mechanisms. This omission is especially concerning given the history of litigation and federal scrutiny surrounding detention conditions nationwide. 5. Fiscal impacts are ignored The bill does not address: •How existing contracts would be unwound, •Liability risks from continued detention contracts, •Costs to counties and taxpayers if federal revenue streams fluctuate or collapse. This creates long-term financial risk while offering no comprehensive funding or transition plan. Conclusion HB 5094 presents itself as a reform measure but does not meaningfully dismantle profit-driven incarceration. By allowing continued detention contracts, including federal and immigration detention, and by failing to impose transparency, rights protections, or fiscal safeguards, the bill risks being symbolic rather than substantive. True reform would require: •Explicit limits on detention-for-profit practices, •Clear restrictions on federal detention contracts, •Mandatory transparency and oversight, •Enforceable protections for detained individuals. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5094 as currently written.

Driving under the influence is not something that should be taken lightly. Watching the life of a girl being taken in our small town due to a woman driving into the influence is heartbreaking. A parent should never have to bury their child due to something that is preventable.

The WV Republican representatives are again displaying the inability to read. Some of you should go back to school and take Civics since "separation of Church and State" isn't obvious to you. The students of WV public schools don't need your lack of common sense or the ten commandments. They need free lunches, after-school programs, music and reading programs, they need clubs and activities, especially in schools in rural communities. They don't need you to push your religious preferences on them when they should be learning skills to make WV great. What you are doing is a travesty and you should be ashamed this is a priorities when kids in four counties don't have access to clean drinking water. Do everyone a favor, Mallow, and touch some grass. Take a trip to McDowell County and have a drink.

This law needs to be accepted.

I oppose HB 5092 because it removes clear, statutory eligibility standards for medical cannabis and replaces them with an undefined “professional judgment” gatekeeping model that can reduce certainty and access for patients who already struggle to find effective treatment. HB 5092 amends the definition of “serious medical condition” by striking the current “any of the following” qualifying-condition list (including cancer, PTSD, Crohn’s disease, neuropathies, severe chronic or intractable pain, and others) and substituting broader language: “a medical condition that a medical doctor, in his or her professional judgement, would benefit from the use of cannabis.” The bill’s own note states its purpose is to grant physicians authority to use professional judgment for certification.  Even if framed as flexibility, removing enumerated conditions from statute can also create uncertainty and uneven access in the real world: patients lose a clear, objective statutory basis for eligibility and are left dependent on individual provider willingness, institutional policies, and risk tolerance. In practice, that can mean people whose medications no longer work—or who cannot tolerate pharmaceuticals—may face new barriers if they cannot find a certifying provider, even though the state already has a regulated program in place.  This proposed shift also occurs while other jurisdictions are moving toward broader legal access. Virginia law allows adults 21+ to lawfully possess up to one ounce and to cultivate up to four plants per household.  Ohio permits adult possession up to 2.5 ounces, and adult-use sales have been underway since 2024.  Kentucky has a state medical cannabis program effective January 1, 2025.  Tennessee still lacks a comprehensive medical access system and is limited to narrow low-THC/CBD protections without in-state legal access for most patients.  West Virginia should not be moving toward a system that effectively narrows dependable access while nearby states expand or operationalize broader access. Finally, federal policy is also in motion: the U.S. Department of Justice issued a proposed rule in 2024 to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, and subsequent federal actions have continued to push the rescheduling process forward.  In that context, West Virginia should prioritize stable, transparent patient access within its existing regulatory program—not statutory changes that can function as a “lockdown” by removing explicit eligibility protections and shifting everything to discretionary gatekeeping after the fact. Request: If HB 5092 moves forward at all, it should be amended to keep the existing enumerated qualifying conditions as a minimum statutory floor (so patients retain clear eligibility protections) while allowing physician judgment to add conditions—not replace the list entirely. As introduced, HB 5092 undermines predictable access for patients who need medical cannabis when conventional medications fail and creates avoidable barriers in a state that already has rules and a regulated program in place. 

I support Baylea’s law…I also think that that the person shouldn’t be allowed to buy alcohol of any type. A State or National registry so when their drivers license is scanned it shows their banned…..there should also be longer jail time three yrs is nothing for someone’s life. How would you feel if it was your child or family member. Put yourself in that Mothers, Fathers or family members shoes. Also there should be triple fines for drinking and driving stiffer penalties, automatic longer AA classes. Thank You

On behalf of the firemen and medics who have to respond to such tragedies,  impaired drivers should be punished for their crimes

This law should be passed so that families affected may get justice!

I oppose HB 5090 because it would forbid compulsory immunization as a prerequisite to enroll in public schools (“Compulsory immunization of children as a perquisite to enroll in public schools in this state is forbidden.”).  West Virginia’s current school-entry immunization law (W. Va. Code §16-3-4) requires children entering school/child care to be immunized against multiple vaccine-preventable diseases (including measles, polio, tetanus, and whooping cough), with exemptions handled through a medical exemption process.  HB 5090’s “prohibit mandates” approach undermines that framework and increases the risk of lower vaccination coverage, which is a known driver of school-centered outbreaks.  This is not an abstract concern. The CDC states measles prevention requires at least ~95% coverage with 2 doses to prevent outbreaks.  Nationally, vaccination coverage has already slipped below this target: in the 2023–2024 school year, overall kindergarten coverage was below 93% for key vaccines, including MMR ~92.7%, while exemptions increased.  The CDC also reports that most measles cases are outbreak-associated, showing how quickly gaps in coverage turn into expensive, disruptive outbreaks.  Vaccination policies are also a healthcare capacity issue, not just a school policy issue. West Virginia’s healthcare system is already operating under significant strain:

• Primary care shortage areas: West Virginia has 126 designated primary care HPSAs, with ~793,019 people living in designated shortage areas; only ~38.28% of need met, and 163 additional practitioners needed to remove the designations.  
• Mental health shortage areas: West Virginia has 124 mental health HPSAs, only ~5.68% of need met, and 94 practitioners needed to remove designations.  
• Rural hospital financial stress: 43% of rural hospitals in West Virginia operate on negative margins.  

When vaccine-preventable diseases increase, the burden lands on the same limited network of clinics, ERs, and hospitals—driving up costs, staffing strain, and missed school/work time. West Virginia has historically benefited from strong immunization coverage. A recent brief on childhood immunization in West Virginia notes that MMR coverage in WV is above national levels and that WV reported 0 measles cases since January 1, 2025.  Policies like HB 5090 risk reversing those gains by weakening the enforceable school-entry vaccination standard and increasing susceptibility clusters. Vaccines also have documented, large population-level impact. For example, the CDC reports the U.S. chickenpox vaccination program reduced cases by ~97% and reduced hospitalizations and deaths.  Weakening school-entry vaccination requirements predictably increases preventable illness, which is the opposite of what a state should do during workforce shortages and rural hospital financial instability. For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to reject HB 5090 and instead strengthen access to vaccination (including through county health departments and the Vaccines for Children program), protect medically vulnerable students, and reduce preventable strain on West Virginia’s healthcare system. 

I agree with bill to double penalty. Where a death is caused it should be maximum sentence

Please consider a harsher punishment for DUI. This is a selfish and foolish act that causes innocent people to lose their life.

I believe there should be longer prison times for cause the death of someone from driving under the influence.

I oppose HB 5088, which increases the retirement benefit multiplier for members of the Natural Resources Police Officer Retirement System from 2.25% to 2.75% for those retiring after July 1, 2026. This legislation raises several serious concerns: First, unfunded and cumulative fiscal impact. HB 5088 increases long-term pension liabilities without clearly identifying sustainable funding sources. This bill does not exist in isolation. During the same session, the Legislature is considering multiple bills expanding retirement benefits, re-hiring retirees, offering sign-on bonuses, and exempting law-enforcement retirement income from taxation. Taken together, these measures compound actuarial risk and shift long-term costs onto taxpayers without adequate transparency or analysis. Second, inequitable prioritization of public funds. While retirement benefits for law enforcement are repeatedly expanded, other essential public needs remain underfunded, including infrastructure maintenance, housing stability, water and environmental protection, education, and workforce development. Expanding retirement multipliers for a narrow group of public employees—without comparable investment in civilian public services—raises equity concerns and reflects unbalanced budget priorities. Third, lack of demonstrated necessity. No evidence is provided that current benefit levels are inadequate, that recruitment or retention failures are directly tied to the existing multiplier, or that this increase is required to maintain public safety. Policy changes of this magnitude should be supported by documented workforce data, actuarial studies, and cost-benefit analysis, none of which are clearly established in the bill. Fourth, long-term pension sustainability risks. Increasing the benefit multiplier permanently raises future payout obligations and increases pressure on pension system solvency. West Virginia has previously faced pension funding challenges, and expanding benefits without structural reform or guaranteed funding undermines fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity. Finally, pattern of preferential treatment without accountability. This bill continues a legislative pattern of expanding law-enforcement financial benefits while unresolved issues remain, including past oversight failures, misconduct scandals, overtime and disaster-relief pay concerns, and whistleblower retaliation allegations. Expanding retirement benefits without addressing accountability and oversight weakens public trust. For these reasons, HB 5088 represents poor fiscal stewardship, inequitable allocation of public resources, and an unsustainable expansion of pension obligations. I urge the West Virginia Legislature to reject this bill.

Nicotine affects your brain development, which can make it harder to learn and concentrate. Some of the brain changes can be permanent and can affect your mood and ability to control yourself as an adult.

Dear Members of the West Virginia House of Delegates, My name is Whitney Cawood. I am a former teacher, a mother, and an advocate, and I stand before you as a witness to the impact of synthetic dyes. A year after leaving the classroom, we welcomed our son, Atreyu. Between the ages of one and three, he began struggling with severe aggression and impulse control. His behavior was so severe that the school assigned a teacher to follow him and prevent him from harming other children. We tried everything— therapy, doctor visits, behavioral strategies, but nothing helped. What finally changed everything was removing synthetic dyes from his diet. Within just 48 hours, the child who once struggled with biting, tackling, sleeplessness, and emotional outbursts became calm, focused, and emotionally regulated, something no medical intervention had achieved. What shocked us most was where those dyes were coming from. Not just food, but his daily allergy medication, antibiotics, and even pink pain relievers. During that season, he suffered chronic ear infections and was prescribed six rounds of antibiotics in one year—nearly 60 days total. Every one of those antibiotics was colored with Red 40. As his aggression intensified, doctors recommended pink Tylenol for teething pain. I vividly remember noticing that every time I gave it to him, his behavior worsened. It wasn’t until later that I connected the dots: the tylenol contained Red 40, compounding the effects of his daily allergy medicine. No matter the source—antibiotics, allergy medication, sweet treats, savory foods, or even a spinach wrap containing Blue 1 and Yellow 5, the reaction was always the same: intense aggression, emotional dysregulation, and sleeplessness. The source didn’t matter. The dyes did. At first, we believed our son’s sensitivity was rare. To connect with others, I started a Facebook group. Within two years, more than 934,000 families joined, sharing thousands of eerily similar, and often more severe, experiences. That led us to a deeper question: how can something we eat impact a child’s brain? To find answers, my husband and I created a documentary in which we interview experts and toxicologists to understand why synthetic dyes affect some children so intensely. I want to share two key takeaways from our research:

1. Synthetic dyes serve no functional purpose beyond aesthetics. These dyes, often derived from petroleum byproducts, offer no nutritional value. They are often used to make unhealthy foods look more appealing, so that consumers will want to buy them
2. Scientific research confirms their harm. The OEHHA report, which analyzed 27 clinical trials, found that synthetic dyes can cause or worsen hyperactivity, inattention, restlessness, irritability, sleeplessness, and aggression in some children. Additionally, consuming dyes can worsen or mimic ADHD symptoms.

I urge you to consider the millions of children, families, and adults who would benefit from the removal of synthetic dyes from medications. For many families, this is the one area where avoiding dyes is nearly impossible. Most pharmaceutical companies do not offer dye-free alternatives, and compounding medications, when available, can cost thousands of dollars, placing them out of reach for most. Removing synthetic dyes from medication would eliminate an unnecessary barrier to health and provide relief to families who have no other options. UPDATE: If you’re wondering about our son today, he is seven years old and thriving in a STEM school. He scores exemplarily in both reading and math and is in a gifted program and a German immersion program. He has no behavioral issues at school and is consistently recognized for both his academic success and positive behavior. Most importantly, he has friends, is kind, and his teachers adore him. Removing synthetic dyes gave the world the child God created, a child with the capacity to learn, connect, and one day make the world better. Contrast that with the child he once was: a child whose behavior was so severe that additional supervision was required to protect other children. Not every child reacts this intensely, but we must consider the ones who do. Best, Whitney Cawood

House Bill 5085, which establishes a regulatory framework for private alternative adolescent residential and outdoor programs, raises serious concerns based on existing federal–state policy conflicts, prior documented failures in oversight, and the bill’s framing of youth placement as an “industry.” 1. The bill normalizes youth confinement as a private “industry” HB 5085 treats adolescent residential and outdoor programs as a regulated industry rather than as an exceptional, last-resort intervention. Framing youth placement as an industry is not neutral. It reflects and reinforces a model in which private entities rely on occupancy and referrals rather than prevention, family preservation, or community-based care. Licensing an industry does not address whether that industry should exist at scale, nor whether it creates financial incentives that conflict with the best interests of children. ⸻ 2. West Virginia has documented risks from per-bed and referral-driven systems West Virginia has already experienced failures involving: •Residential and rehabilitation facilities operating with insufficient oversight •Public or quasi-public funding structures tied to occupancy (“per bed / per head”) •Referral pipelines connected to law enforcement or crisis systems rather than medical necessity HB 5085 does not prohibit per-bed financial incentives, referral coercion, or profit structures tied to length of stay. Regulation without structural safeguards risks repeating documented harms under a new statutory label. ⸻ 3. Federal housing policy already excludes medically vulnerable families Under federal law and policy enforced by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, marijuana remains illegal, and HUD-assisted housing does not allow marijuana use, including state-legal medical cannabis. As a result: •Individuals using medical cannabis for cancer, chronic pain, PTSD, or other serious illnesses may be denied or removed from housing assistance •There is no medical exemption under HUD policy •Disabled and chronically ill individuals are forced to choose between symptom management and housing stability This exclusion is structural and ongoing. ⸻ 4. Housing exclusion directly increases youth displacement and system involvement When caregivers with cancer, chronic pain, or disabilities are excluded from housing: •Families destabilize •Housing insecurity increases •Youth are more likely to enter child welfare, juvenile justice, or “alternative” residential systems HB 5085 does not address this upstream cause. Instead, it regulates the downstream consequence—youth confinement—thereby institutionalizing the fallout of federal housing exclusion rather than mitigating it. ⸻ 5. The bill lacks explicit prohibitions on abusive or coercive practices HB 5085 does not: •Explicitly prohibit conversion-therapy-style practices •Require evidence-based, trauma-informed care standards •Provide heightened protections for LGBTQ+ youth •Address coercive behavior modification models historically associated with residential and outdoor programs Licensing alone does not prevent psychological coercion, isolation, or abuse, particularly when youth have limited ability to report harm. ⸻ 6. Regulation does not equal legitimacy Creating a licensing framework can confer perceived legitimacy on systems that have historically caused harm, especially when: •Oversight relies on inspections rather than outcomes •Reporting depends on self-disclosure by operators •Youth lack meaningful avenues for complaint or redress HB 5085 regulates existence, not necessity, and does not require proof that residential confinement is the least restrictive or most effective option. ⸻ Conclusion HB 5085 risks codifying a private youth-placement industry in a state where: •Federal housing policy already excludes medically vulnerable families •Prior residential and rehabilitation models have failed under weak oversight •Youth displacement is driven by structural policy conflicts, not individual failure Rather than expanding or normalizing residential confinement, West Virginia policy should prioritize: •Housing stability •Family preservation •Medical accommodation •Community-based, non-institutional supports For these reasons, HB 5085 should not advance in its current form.

this law needs to be in place due to the lives that have been taken.

I honestly feel if this bill doesn’t get passed it’s a slap to the face of ALL West Virginian people. Do the right thing.

Laws should be more strict when driving intoxicated. Especially when causing death. So many families are losing loved ones due to someone’s irresponsibility. Baylea was an inspiration to anyone she came across. Whether she knew you or not. I personally didn’t know Baylea but I knew her family. Anytime I went into Bayleas shop she was there and very sweet and helpful.

I’m all for this law! There’s too many people losing their lives to impaired drivers whether it be drunk driving or drugs. This law needs put into place and people need to take accountability for their actions and face the consequences.

If an animal is in an abusive shelter it can negativity impact the behavioral and psychological health of an animal, which can also reduces their chances for adoption.

5 years is better, but still not enough, in my opinion.

Chairman Burkhammer & Members of the Committee on Health & Human Resources, I write on behalf of the Animal Health Institute (AHI) to respectfully request that language be added to House Bill 4392 clarifying that the legislation does not apply to animal drugs and medicine. AHI is the U.S. trade association for research-based manufacturers of animal health products – the medicines that keep pets, service animals, and livestock healthy.  While we appreciate your introducing SB 466/HB 4392 to follow up on last year’s HB 2354, we are concerned that the scope of the pending legislation is dramatically broader than last year’s measure and could inadvertently interfere with the medical treatment of animals. While West Virgina’s Food and Drug Law defines the term “food” as  “all articles used for food, drink, confectionary or condiment by man,” the state’s definition of the term “drug” includes “all medicines for internal or external use, antiseptics, disinfectants and cosmetics.”  As such, the former definition clearly captures just human food, and the latter definition would seem to cover animal drugs and medicine. Food dyes and additives serve a valuable purpose in animal drugs and medicine, for livestock, service, and companion animals. For example, the colorants used for drugs in medicated feed are typically added so a producer and/or veterinarian can tell it is there, not just to make it look appealing. Substitute colorants may not work the same for this functionality.  As these colors are added at low levels, they have no impact on animal or human health. I appreciate your time and again respectfully ask that HB 4392 include language clarifying that it does not apply to animal drugs and medicine .  Please feel free to contact me at gharrington@ahi.org or (202) 549-5934 if you have any questions. Take care, Gene   Gene Harrington Senior Director, State Affairs Animal Health Institute (202) 549-5934 – Mobile gharrington@ahi.org    

I oppose HB 5074 because it reallocates funds without addressing the documented structural and regulatory barriers that have prevented the Medical Cannabis Program from functioning as intended since its inception. First, the existence of unspent or underutilized funds is not evidence of excess capacity or success. The Medical Cannabis Program has faced persistent operational constraints, including federal–state conflicts, banking limitations, institutional compliance risk, and restrictive regulatory thresholds. These barriers have limited participation by financial institutions, research entities, and healthcare providers. Reallocating proceeds does not resolve these foundational issues and instead shifts resources away from the program before it has been allowed to operate under workable conditions. Second, current nanogram-based limits and related regulatory thresholds restrict meaningful medical and scientific research. Nanogram limits function as administrative controls rather than evidence-based medical or pharmacological standards. Fixed concentration thresholds do not reliably correlate with impairment, therapeutic benefit, dosage efficacy, or patient safety due to wide individual variability in cannabinoid metabolism. As a result:

• Clinically relevant dose-response studies are discouraged or rendered nonviable;
• Research protocols cannot reflect real-world medical use;
• Institutional review boards and universities are deterred from participation due to compliance and liability concerns.

These constraints directly undermine the very research objectives cited in the bill, including neuroscience, substance-use treatment, and public-health outcomes. Third, reallocating funds does not correct the research bottleneck—it institutionalizes it. Funds earmarked for medical cannabis or related research remain unused not because of lack of need, but because existing statutory and regulatory frameworks prevent valid, publishable, and generalizable research from occurring. Redirecting these funds to other purposes without first correcting those barriers results in policy avoidance rather than policy correction. Fourth, the bill prioritizes redistribution over program viability. HB 5074 reallocates proceeds to external programs and institutions without demonstrating that:

• the Medical Cannabis Program has reached functional maturity;
• regulatory obstacles have been resolved;
• patient access, provider participation, and research infrastructure are operational at scale.

This approach risks permanently diverting resources away from a program that has not yet been afforded the legal and regulatory conditions necessary to succeed. Finally, the bill undermines evidence-based policymaking. If the Legislature’s stated goals include reducing substance misuse, supporting medical innovation, and improving public-health outcomes, then policy should focus on removing barriers to data collection, clinical research, and program implementation—not reallocating funds away from an incomplete system. Without correcting these deficiencies, future appropriations and reallocations will continue to face the same outcome: idle funds and limited measurable results. Conclusion HB 5074 addresses the symptom—unspent funds—while leaving the cause intact. Until regulatory thresholds, research constraints, and institutional participation barriers are resolved, reallocating Medical Cannabis Program proceeds is premature and counterproductive. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5074.

If you can get behind the wheel impaired, and knowing you shouldn’t be.. you are a murderer and should be charged the same as murder. consequences for one’s actions to let them reflect on what they do to families and communities.

I think we need this law where another life doesn’t get taken

I believe this bill is very important and should be implemented. DUI's are becoming more common and injuries/death are the outcome for many innocent people, people who are undeserving of that fate due to another's poor choice.

I respectfully submit this statement in opposition to House Bill 5073. House Bill 5073 proposes amendments to West Virginia Code §7-14-13, governing deputy sheriffs’ tenure and seniority, by allowing the transfer of seniority between sheriff departments under certain conditions. While presented as an administrative or retention-related measure, the bill raises substantial legal, fiscal, and policy concerns that conflict with existing statutory principles, constitutional protections, and sound public administration. 1. Conflict With the Purpose of §7-14-13 and Civil Service Principles West Virginia Code §7-14-13 establishes seniority as a function of continuous service within a specific sheriff department, forming the basis for promotion, layoffs, reinstatement, and employment hierarchy. Allowing seniority to transfer between departments contradicts the underlying purpose of this statute by severing seniority from:

• Continuous service
• Local institutional knowledge
• Department-specific experience

This undermines the integrity of the civil service framework established in W. Va. Code §§7-14-1 through 7-14-23, which is designed to ensure merit-based employment and stability within county law enforcement. 2. Unequal Treatment and Equal Protection Concerns By allowing some deputies to retain seniority upon transfer while others must accrue seniority through continued service in a single department, HB 5073 creates disparate treatment among similarly situated public employees. This raises concerns under:

• Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (Equal Protection and Due Process)
• Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Equal Protection Clause)

Public employment benefits tied to rank, pay, and job security must be administered uniformly and rationally. Preferential seniority portability lacks a demonstrated rational basis tied to public safety or operational necessity. 3. Erosion of County Authority Over Employment Sheriff departments are county offices operating under county funding authority pursuant to:

• W. Va. Code §7-1-1 (County commissions as governing bodies)
• W. Va. Code §7-7-7 (County compensation authority)

Seniority directly affects compensation, overtime priority, promotion eligibility, and layoff order. HB 5073 imposes a state mandate that restricts county commissions’ ability to manage personnel costs and workforce structure, without providing fiscal offsets or local opt-out authority. 4. Fiscal Impact Without Required Analysis Transferred seniority can result in immediate and long-term cost increases, including:

• Higher salary placement
• Increased overtime eligibility
• Accelerated retirement qualification

Yet HB 5073 contains no fiscal note requirement, no funding mechanism, and no cost containment provisions, contrary to principles of responsible fiscal governance embodied throughout Chapter 11 (Taxation and Finance) and Chapter 12 (Public Moneys and Securities) of the West Virginia Code. This exposes counties to unfunded mandates in violation of prudent public finance norms. 5. Pension and Retirement Risk Seniority is often a determining factor in retirement eligibility and benefit calculations under public employment systems. Allowing seniority portability creates the risk of:

• Artificial inflation of service credit
• Accelerated vesting
• Increased unfunded pension liabilities

HB 5073 provides no actuarial analysis, despite the Legislature’s duty to safeguard public retirement systems and taxpayer-funded obligations. 6. Accountability and Record Integrity Deficiencies HB 5073 does not require standardized disclosure or transfer of:

• Disciplinary records
• Performance evaluations
• Internal investigations

This omission conflicts with public accountability principles and risks allowing individuals to retain rank-based privileges while leaving behind relevant employment history, undermining public trust in law enforcement institutions. 7. Workforce Instability Contrary to Legislative Intent Rather than promoting retention, seniority portability incentivizes lateral movement and department-hopping. This conflicts with the civil service purpose of stability and continuity embedded in W. Va. Code §7-14-1, which recognizes the need for orderly and consistent personnel administration in law enforcement. 8. No Demonstrated Public Safety Nexus HB 5073 fails to demonstrate any measurable improvement in:

• Public safety outcomes
• Emergency response capacity
• Community policing effectiveness

Legislation affecting public employment and pensions must be justified by a legitimate governmental interest. No such nexus is established here. 9. Preferential Treatment Without Workforce Parity Other public servants governed by West Virginia law—including teachers, EMS personnel, and county workers—do not receive equivalent seniority portability. Selective benefits undermine workforce equity and contradict principles of uniform public employment standards. 10. Due Process and Procedural Concerns By altering employment rights and expectations retroactively without clear procedural safeguards, HB 5073 raises due process concerns under:

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

Employment systems must provide predictability and fairness, not retroactive restructuring of rank and benefits. Conclusion House Bill 5073 conflicts with the intent of W. Va. Code §7-14-13, undermines county authority under §§7-1-1 and 7-7-7, raises equal protection and due process concerns under the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, and exposes counties and taxpayers to unfunded fiscal and pension liabilities without demonstrated public safety benefit. For these reasons, I formally oppose HB 5073 and urge the Legislature to reject the bill.

Justice for Baylee

This is badly needed. Keep all of us sa

Justice for her. So young taken by someone else’s stupidity.

I come from a family that has lost two toddlers due to DUI. The person responsible for their death is already out of prison. These babies would not even be teenagers or out of middle school. I feel that the sentencing should be more. Changing this can affect peoples decisions to get behind the wheel impaired. This could make a difference.

I feel that it is very important to have stiffer penalties for DUI causing death. Why are we being so lenient on someone who disregarded the law and chose to be careless with their own life as well as anyone they encounter? Make them pay for taking a life! We need to pass Baylea's Law! I think anyone supplying the alcohol and/or drugs should be charged as well.

HB4712

Increasing the criminal penalties for DUI causing death and DUI offenses for minors, to be known as “Baylea’s Law.”

PEND COMM

01-21-2026

This bill should have already been in effect.   I lost a son to a drunk driver he got 3 years home confinement, and ask for a reduction at 18 months.   My son who is laying in a grave don’t get a reduction, I will never see his perfect face again.   The laws are not strict enough on drunk drivers!   The boy who killed my son was a repeat offender.  Baylea’s Law would help put these offenders behind bars longer and give the surviving families some peace of mind knowing that they are not still on the roads.   I 100% agree with this law and will support it anyway that I can!

Please pass this bill, we need more accountability on actions that take the lives of others.

I think this bill should be passed not only to honor sweet Baylea but to bring on a more harsh sentence to those who choose to drink and drive and of course more of a sense of justice for the families. Victims of drunk driving accidents never choose to be hurt, hit or killed. They are traveling in their day to day lives just like me and you. Drunk drivers have a choice to not drive, Baylea didn’t have the option to make it home safely. Every single victim of a drunk driving accident didn’t get the option to make it to their families. I think this bill would be great, so people know they at least arent gonna get a slap on the wrist and do (minimum) 3 years anymore. Thank you for your time and I really hope Weat Virginia does what’s right and passes this bill to hopefully discourage people from drinking and driving.

Checked I am submitting this statement in opposition to House Bill 5069 as introduced in the 2026 Regular Session of the West Virginia Legislature. 1. The bill does not provide equivalent energy incentives to residential taxpayers. HB 5069 and related energy policy frameworks incentivize corporate energy generation on private property through exemptions, expedited approvals, or regulatory flexibility. There is no provision in the bill that provides comparable statutory incentives, generation access, or rate protections to residential taxpayers. This results in unequal treatment under state energy policy. Fact: residential ratepayers do not receive the same statutory energy incentives or regulatory carve-outs as corporations under this bill. 2. The bill lacks requirements for a balanced renewable energy mix for incentivized projects. West Virginia has viable potential for both wind and solar generation. However, HB 5069 does not require incentivized private energy generation to include a diversified renewable portfolio such as both wind and solar, nor does it require integration with battery storage or other reliability resources. Fact: the language of the bill does not mandate a specific renewable energy mix or performance standard. 3. Independent or private energy systems under the bill are not required to benefit the public grid. There is no requirement in HB 5069 for independent generation developed by incentivized entities to share excess capacity with the public grid, reduce public rate pressures, or contribute to statewide grid resilience planning. Companies can establish private generation that serves only their facilities without obligations to strengthen the public grid. Fact: the bill does not include provisions that require private generation to benefit the public grid. 4. The bill does not strengthen net-metering rights or distributed generation access for residents. Existing net-metering policy enables small-scale distributed generation at residential sites. HB 5069 does not expand or protect net-metering rights for residential customers, nor does it reduce barriers to residential renewable generation. Fact: the bill’s text does not amend or enhance net-metering statutes for residential customers. 5. The bill’s structure creates uneven treatment between corporate and residential energy users. As written, the policy framework treats large corporate users differently from residential ratepayers by allowing corporate entities greater autonomy and incentives in energy generation while leaving residential customers subject to existing rate structures and grid limitations without commensurate benefits. Fact: the bill creates differing rights and obligations without statutory parity between residential and corporate energy users. 📌  Conclusion For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5069. The bill fails to provide equitable energy policy treatment for residential taxpayers, does not ensure integration of a balanced renewable portfolio, and does not require that privately incentivized generation improve public grid reliability.

I drive by this beautiful girls former coffee shop regularly on my way to work and my heart still breaks for her family and friends. This law definitely needs to be passed!!!

Please vote yes to pass this law!! thank you Debbie Gillispie

This punishment is unacceptable for the crime committed.

Baylea was my niece and lost her life to the negligence of a drunk driver. The lady that took her life knowing ingested alcohol and illegal drugs and got behind the wheel ultimately causing the death of Baylea but it could have been many more. DUI causing death has a lesser sentence than murder, when it should be considered the same. The person knew exactly what they were doing when they consumed alcohol and or drugs and got behind the wheel. Regardless of age, the punishment needs to be harsher and more deserving for the crime. our family is left to grieve the loss from someone carelessness act.

I oppose House Bill 5064 because it expands state control over municipalities without creating any corresponding expansion of accountability, ethics enforcement, or transparency, and it risks punishing residents for structural failures they did not cause. HB 5064 frames itself as “strengthening oversight,” but in practice it only strengthens administrative enforcement and state takeover authority, not public accountability. The bill does not expand the jurisdiction or investigatory authority of ethics bodies, does not lower the threshold for review of misconduct, and does not address systemic failures that occur without direct personal financial benefit to an individual. Under current ethics law, institutional mismanagement, negligence, or policy-driven harm remains outside enforceable ethics review, and HB 5064 leaves that gap entirely intact. The bill allows municipalities to be labeled as experiencing “chronic audit noncompliance” after multiple years of failed audits, yet it does not require an analysis of root causes, such as underfunding, staffing shortages, unfunded state mandates, infrastructure decay, or prior state policy decisions that may have contributed to those failures. Instead, the response mechanism is dissolution and state receivership — a remedy that transfers control upward without assigning responsibility downward. HB 5064 also raises due-process concerns by enabling the loss of municipal self-governance based on compliance outcomes rather than demonstrated misconduct. The bill provides no meaningful avenue for residents to contest dissolution, no requirement for independent review, and no mechanism for public findings regarding conflicts of interest, regulatory failures, or state involvement in creating fiscal distress. Most critically, the bill targets municipalities as entities rather than decision-makers, shielding individuals and institutions that may have contributed to fiscal collapse while exposing residents, ratepayers, and workers to the consequences of dissolution. This approach converts audit enforcement into a punitive tool rather than a corrective one. True oversight would include:

• Expanded ethics jurisdiction over systemic and institutional misconduct
• Independent review mechanisms
• Transparent findings on causation and responsibility
• Remedies focused on recovery rather than elimination of local governance

HB 5064 does none of these. It centralizes authority without strengthening ethics enforcement, public transparency, or democratic accountability. For these reasons, the bill should be rejected or substantially amended.

We need stiffer laws & penalties for anyone that drives while impaired, whether it be from alcohol or drugs.

Please consider passing this bill. Thank you

I am Lisa Lefferts, a science consultant.  Previously I was Senior Scientist at the independent Center for Science in the Public Interest. Before that, I served on FDA’s Food Advisory Committee when it considered synthetic food dyes in 2011. I was also the main author of the successful petition to FDA to ban Red 3, a cancer-causing food dye.[i] I am grateful to West Virginia for being a leader in protecting children from unnecessary harmful ingredients in their food – and now in their medicines.   Thank you! The bottom line is, “Synthetic dyes can cause or exacerbate neurobehavioral problems in children.” That’s a quote from the best assessment on synthetic dyes[ii] ever conducted.  By best, I mean, the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent.  It looked at ALL the evidence, not just some, like other assessments.  It rigorously examined the evidence using a systematic, state of the art approach.  It’s considered the best not just by me but by at least 30 other scientists and 20 health-focused organizations who wrote in to express their views on the assessment.[iii] The assessment uses 27 clinical trials, considered “the gold standard” for evidence of causation.  These trials were on children, and are designed to hold all other variables constant except for whether synthetic dyes are present or not, so we know that the effect is really from the dyes, and not something else. Not only do we have all that human evidence, we also have evidence from animals, and from cells and tissues,  and all these lines of evidence reach the same conclusion.   That strengthens our confidence that dyes really do cause these effects. By “neurobehavioral effects,” we mean that dyes can cause or worsen conditions like hyperactivity, inattention, sleeplessness, and restlessness.  Those are serious effects that can have long-term consequences.  Synthetic food dyes affect neurotransmitter systems in the brain, and actually cause microscopic changes in brain structure.[iv] The federal government is also now on record that synthetic food dyes [quote] “pose real measurable dangers to our children’s health and development” [endquote].[v] So what the heck are they doing in our food, and in our medicine—even in drugs such as Ritalin, used to treat children with ADHD ?[vi]  Good question. These are unnecessary, cosmetic additions to food and drugs.  They can just be left out, or safer colorings derived from plants can be used.  Many companies have already reformulated their food and drug products to eliminate synthetic dyes.  And some forms of the same drug don’t have dyes.  So it’s doable. Unfortunately, in the case of drugs, there are synthetic dyes not permitted in food that are allowed to be used in drugs and cosmetics, called D&C colors (for Drug & Cosmetic).  These have not been studied for behavioral effects in children like synthetic food dyes – FD&C colors – although many have similar chemistry to the synthetic food dyes.  Anecdotally, some parents say their children react to these dyes as well. Keep in mind that many medicines are taken every day, or even multiple times a day.  For example, Ritalin is taken twice daily.  Vicks Nyquil Children’s Cold and Cough Plus Runny Nose Berry cough syrup, bright red due to the synthetic food dye Red 40, is taken 4 times a day.  It all adds up.  And of course, these are for people  who already aren’t feeling well. I note that this bill does not have anything to do with the safety of active drug ingredients.  The bill targets a handful of non-drug, non-active ingredients in the formulation – ingredients that are not required for the drug to achieve its intended effect, and for which safer alternatives are available. Thank you for your kind attention, and please let me know if there are any questions I can answer. [i] Color Additive Petition from Center for Science in the Public Interest, et al.; Request to Revoked Color Additive Listing for Use of FD&C Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs. Final amendment; order. 90 FR 4628, 1/16/2025.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00830/color-additive-petition-from-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-et-al-request-to-revoke-color, [ii] California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Potential Neurobehavioral Effects of Synthetic Food Dyes in Children. April 2021. https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/synthetic-food-dye-risk-assessment. [iii] Comments from 21 organizations and 31 researchers and health practitioners on OEHHA Public Review Draft:” Potential Neurobehavioral Effects of Synthetic Food Dyes in Children, Health Effects Assessment.” Available from OEHHA or LY Lefferts. [iv] OEHHA 2021, op cit, p. 19 [v] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. News Release. HHS, FDA to Phase Out Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes in Nation’s Food Supply. April 22, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply. [vi] FDA, Medication Guide for Ritalin, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2025/010187s094lbl.pdf#page=11.

Baylea was a precious soul taken way too soon. By someone who disregarded the law and still continued to do so even after she committed the crime. It’s wrong. What is life worth to you? Is your life worth 15 years? What about your children? Are their lives worth only 15 years? A life is precious. Baylea was precious and irreplaceable. Taking a life should never be regarded so lightly as 3-15 years.

I oppose House Bill 5063 because it further fragments tourism funding and governance while failing to provide meaningful, independent oversight of public funds. West Virginia’s tourism functions have already been absorbed into broader executive and economic-development structures, rather than operating as a clearly independent agency. HB 5063 compounds this fragmentation by dispersing hotel occupancy tax authority and compliance responsibilities across county commissions, convention and visitors bureaus, and state-level entities without establishing clear audit authority, enforcement standards, or uniform accountability mechanisms. The bill substitutes rigid operational formulas and compliance mandates for real oversight. Prescribed spending percentages, staffing and office requirements, and accreditation mandates do not ensure fiscal integrity, especially when audit discretion, FOIA enforcement, and ethics review authority have been narrowed unless specific triggering conditions are met. This creates the appearance of accountability without providing the legal tools necessary to investigate misuse, inefficiency, or conflicts of interest. Additionally, allowing county commissioners to serve as voting members of convention and visitors bureaus blurs the line between oversight and operational control, increasing the risk of conflicts of interest while reducing independent governance. HB 5063 increases administrative burden, reduces local flexibility, and disperses responsibility for public funds at a time when transparency and enforceable oversight should be strengthened, not diluted. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to oppose HB 5063.

The act of taking a life while intoxicated should be far more time.. It’s the same outcome as purposely taking one. For the families and the loved ones it’s not fair it definitely should’ve already been in place for all the families that it has already effected.

Please do not have every county have different rules. My daughter in law is teacher and her pay is essential for their family.

This bill MUST pass so others don't have to see their loved ones pass and then suffer having to watch a light sentence given for their grief....do the right thing.

I believe the current sentencing guidelines for a DUI causing death are not high enough. Please consider passing Baylea’s Law to make the guidelines higher and stricter for anyone that makes the wreckless and permanent choice to get behind the wheel under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

we need this bill. There’s too many young people getting away with drunk driving after multiple offenses. I know One personally and who is still driving. Save a life and let this bill pass.

I strongly urge that Baylee’s Law (HB 4712) be passed. Baylee was a wife, a daughter, & a friend whose life was taken by an underage drunk driver who was far over the legal limit and under the influence of other substances. Despite the severity of these actions, justice was not fully served. Baylee’s Law is not about revenge; it is about accountability, deterrence, and protecting innocent lives. Doubling sentencing time for drunk driving crashes that result in death sends a clear message that reckless, impaired driving will not be tolerated in West Virginia. The current penalty does not reflect the irreversible loss families endure or the seriousness of these crimes.   We cannot bring Baylee back, but we can honor her life by demanding stronger laws that prevent future tragedies. Passing this law is a necessary step toward justice, safer roads, and real consequences for those who choose to drive impaired. West Virginia owes it to Baylee and to every family who deserves better protection under the law.

This should be made into law

Our country is so divided. I believe we should have more concern for each other and think about how our actions affect what could happen. I would not wish for any thing to happen to anyone. Hopefully if we had stronger laws and stricter enforcement and more accountability people would think about the seriousness of what might happen to them and others.    

I didn’t know Baylea, but she had a long life ahead until someone intentionally made the careless decision to get behind the wheel and take her life. With this new law I feel as though many people will think before they drink and drive as it may effect not only their life but someone else’s.

I fully support the new law being proposed to strengthen penalties for DUI cases that result in death. Increasing the sentence range from a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 15 years to a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 30 years is a responsible and necessary change. Driving under the influence is a choice, and when that choice costs someone their life, the consequences should reflect the seriousness and permanence of that loss. This law would help hold offenders more accountable, honor victims and their families, and serve as a stronger deterrent to prevent future tragedies.

Stricter consequences may save lives, please pass this bill

Baylea’s law should be applied. She died of a DUI and the girl is most likely getting 3 years when she should be getting 30 to life. That girl killed someone and she’s just getting a small amount of what she should be getting. Baylea’s law would change that and it would punish those who are reckless. Baylea died she lost her life and that girl doesn’t even care. She’ll continue to do it while we continue to mourn the life Baylea had. Baylea will never be a mom so I ask that you implement Bayleas Law.

Yes there should be a stronger law for DUI ..Longer time served for this offence. Then maybe  . They would think before getting in vichele impaired . Causing accidents.Death or badly hurt . A lot of the time the person driving impaired isn't hurt it's the inacent victim.

Need better laws and stiffer penalties.

DUI should have maximum sentence so that everyone is terrified to do it and won’t chance it.

I oppose HB 5059 because it creates a statutory process that allows cultural heritage institutions to obtain legal title to property without sufficient due-process protections for rightful owners or their heirs. While the bill is framed as an administrative measure, its practical effect is to permanently transfer private property interests based on limited notice and undefined standards of diligence. HB 5059 allows an institution to vest title to property deemed “undocumented,” on indefinite or permanent loan, or treated as an unsolicited donation, even when ownership cannot be conclusively disproven. The bill does not establish a clear or uniform standard for what constitutes a reasonable or exhaustive search for an owner or heirs. Without defined requirements for genealogical research, estate review, or consultation of public and probate records, property may be declared abandoned despite the existence of lawful ownership interests. The notice provisions in HB 5059 are insufficient to satisfy constitutional due-process principles. Notice by certified mail to a last known address, combined with publication or electronic notice, is not reasonably calculated to reach all interested parties, particularly where records are incomplete, outdated, or affected by displacement, migration, or historical loss of documentation. Due process requires meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard before property rights are altered, not merely procedural convenience. The bill also lacks safeguards related to valuation and compensation. HB 5059 does not require independent appraisal or establish a value threshold before title vests. As a result, property with significant monetary or historical value may be transferred without compensation, escrow, or any mechanism for recovery if a rightful owner later comes forward. Once title vests, the bill provides no clear remedy for owners or heirs to reclaim property or proceeds, even if ownership can later be proven. Additionally, the bill provides no independent oversight, audit requirement, or standardized documentation of compliance. This creates inconsistent application across institutions and increases the risk of error or abuse. The absence of a clear statute of limitations for ownership challenges further undermines legal certainty and invites future litigation. HB 5059 lowers longstanding common-law and constitutional protections for property rights in favor of administrative efficiency. Property rights do not disappear because documentation is incomplete, nor should the state facilitate title transfer without rigorous procedural protections. Convenience for institutions is not a sufficient justification to weaken due-process standards. For these reasons, HB 5059 should be rejected or substantially amended to include strict due-diligence requirements, meaningful notice standards, independent appraisal, compensation or escrow provisions, and a clear process for rightful owners to assert claims after vesting.

Needs be higher and ban them from bars and buying alcohol

I agree with this bill because there is no need to participate in gym if those requirements are followed. Gym isn't to necessarily teach exercise, but practice it. So, if you play a sport you are exercising everyday meaning you don't need gym.

I disagree with this bill. It is violating and there is no need for cameras to be inside of the classrooms. It hasn't been a problem so there is no need to "fix it."

I oppose HB 5056 because it creates a death-contingent financial benefit that raises serious ethical, actuarial, and public-policy concerns. Under this bill, a retiree who selected a joint-life annuity may convert to a higher-paying maximum annuity if their spouse dies within a defined period. While framed as financial relief, this structure makes an individual financially better off upon the death of a specific person. Public benefit systems are traditionally designed to avoid such outcomes because they introduce moral hazard and perverse incentives. It is well documented that deaths are not always accurately classified at the time they occur. Homicides and suspicious deaths may be misclassified as natural or accidental, with investigations reopening years later or never reaching resolution. Pension benefit changes, however, are immediate and rarely subject to reversal. Public policy should not rely on perfect detection or future investigations as a safeguard. Additionally, the bill treats loss unequally by assigning financial value only to the death of a spouse, while other significant deaths or caregiving losses receive no consideration. This selective approach lacks a neutral actuarial basis and undermines fairness in retirement benefit design. State pension systems should minimize incentives tied to death outcomes and instead rely on actuarially neutral recalculations or uniformly applied benefit structures that do not condition financial gain on the death of a specific individual. For these reasons, HB 5056 should be rejected or substantially amended to remove death-triggered financial incentives and align with established public pension and insurance risk principles.

no parents should lose a child. No husband should lose a wife. No friends should lose a friend do more for getting behind the wheel of a car that causes to take a innocent life do more

Vote no on this terrible bill.  It is not good for education.

I submit this comment as a concerned West Virginia resident regarding HB 5052, which would provide a one-time cost-of-living benefit for certain public retirees. 1. Impact on State Obligations and Working Taxpayers HB 5052 increases retirement payouts without identifying offsetting revenue sources or structural pension reforms. Because public pensions are funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions funded through state and local tax dollars, and investment returns, increasing benefits increases long-term liabilities. These liabilities are ultimately supported by the state budget — which is funded by current working taxpayers. Any future increase in employer contributions or budget reallocations would affect workers and taxpayers who are not yet retired. 2. Intergenerational Equity Considerations While supporting retirees is an important policy goal, West Virginia currently faces significant economic and demographic challenges, including out-migration of younger residents, stagnant wages, housing instability, and food insecurity. Policy decisions that increase long-term obligations without parallel strategies to improve economic stability for younger generations may unintentionally shift costs onto the working population and future taxpayers. 3. Alternative or Complementary Approaches To improve long-term sustainability and support for all residents, the Legislature should consider integrating policies that address housing affordability and stability for workers of all ages. Housing is the single largest fixed cost for most households. Programs that increase access to income-based or discounted housing, incentivize rehabilitation of vacant units, or support workforce housing near employment centers can improve overall economic stability and reduce pressure on state budgets. These approaches can complement retirement benefit adjustments by addressing root economic stressors rather than solely increasing benefit payments. 4. Request for Fiscal Transparency I respectfully request that the Legislature consider: •A detailed fiscal note showing projected long-term costs of HB 5052 to the pension system and state budget; •A strategy for funding these increased obligations without increasing burden on currently working and future taxpayers; •A broader review of policies that support sustainable retirement security and economic stability for younger residents. Thank you for your consideration of both current retirees’ needs and the long-term economic health of the state and its working population.

I agree there should be tougher laws for DUI causing death.  It ruins both lives. Tougher laws would make people think harder about the consequences. I sincerely pray this law passes.

Pass the bill

I oppose House Bill 5050. HB 5050 would expand the statutory state convict road force by making all incarcerated individuals, regardless of sex, eligible for forced labor on state highways, roads, quarries, gravel pits, and other road-related maintenance and construction activities. This expansion of forced labor is deeply concerning for multiple reasons. First, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. While the constitutional exception technically permits involuntary labor of incarcerated individuals, it does not authorize the Legislature to impose unsafe work requirements without adequate protections. The bill’s language merely expands who can be compelled to labor on the road force; it does not include baseline safety standards, weather-related work limits, injury protections, or the ability to refuse unsafe work without penalty. These omissions expose incarcerated people to risk unnecessarily. Working on highways and road construction/maintenance is inherently dangerous, involving heavy machinery, motor traffic, uneven terrain, exposure to storms, snow, ice, extreme heat, and other hazardous conditions. The bill contains no provisions addressing when road force work would be prohibited due to unsafe weather or environmental hazards, nor does it require adequate safety gear, rest periods, or compensatory protections. Without these safeguards, injured incarcerated individuals may be left without recourse while the state is shielded from liability. Second, incarcerated people are not free workers; they cannot refuse dangerous work without facing disciplinary consequences, loss of privileges, or extended punishment. Requiring them to perform physically hazardous labor without safety constraints raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns of cruel and unusual punishment and could constitute deliberate indifference to inmate welfare. HB 5050, in its current form, compounds this problem by broadening the pool of people subject to compulsory labor without establishing protective safeguards. If the Legislature intends to authorize expanded inmate labor, it must simultaneously adopt meaningful worker protections, enforceable safety protocols, explicit prohibitions on hazardous weather labor, adequate compensation and injury coverage, and the right to refuse unsafe assignments without penalty. Without these, the bill dangerously expands forced labor into unsafe conditions. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to oppose HB 5050 or substantially amend it to include necessary safety, weather, and worker protections for incarcerated individuals required to work on state highways and related projects.

NO ON HB4433 We have a right and duty to help neighbors in need regardless of their immigration status. Please stop stigmatizing and harming our immigrant communities and those who care about them. thank you

I oppose House Bill 5049. HB 5049 authorizes the use of incarcerated individuals for outdoor labor, including cemetery upkeep, without establishing any enforceable safety standards, weather restrictions, or worker protections. While the 13th Amendment permits forced labor as a narrow constitutional exception following conviction, that exception does not relieve the state of its obligation to protect incarcerated people from unsafe, coercive, or punitive conditions beyond the sentence imposed by a court. Cemetery upkeep is inherently physical, outdoor labor that involves uneven terrain, heavy lifting, tools, and exposure to environmental hazards. The bill contains no provisions addressing work during snow, ice, freezing temperatures, extreme heat, or other hazardous weather conditions. Injuries under these conditions are not speculative; they are foreseeable. Incarcerated individuals do not have the same ability as free workers to refuse unsafe labor without consequence, making weather-related exposure coercive by nature. HB 5049 also authorizes wage deductions to reimburse incarceration costs while providing liability protections for government entities. This combination shifts the full risk of injury onto incarcerated people while insulating the state and participating entities from accountability. When forced labor is expanded without corresponding safety requirements, injury protections, or meaningful voluntariness safeguards, it raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns related to cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to inmate safety. The constitutional exception allowing inmate labor does not authorize the Legislature to ignore basic standards of human safety or working conditions. If inmate labor is to be expanded, the law must include clear limitations on work during hazardous weather, enforceable safety protocols, injury compensation protections, and the right to refuse unsafe labor without retaliation. HB 5049 contains none of these safeguards. For these reasons, HB 5049 should be rejected or substantially amended. Authorizing compelled labor without weather constraints or safety standards exposes incarcerated individuals to unnecessary harm and exposes the state to avoidable constitutional and civil-rights liability.

If you drink do not drive.

Bailey’s law would give some justice to families who have endured the pain of loosing someone to a drunk driver. I lost my mother when I was 12 years old to a drunk driver in Seth WV. The driver spent 6 months in jail and I have spent the last 39 years without a mother.

I oppose HB 5046 because it expands State Police retirement benefit obligations without addressing existing fiscal, accountability, or oversight deficiencies. HB 5046 amends the State Police Retirement System to lower the eligibility age for annual annuity adjustments from 63 to 55. This change increases the duration and total cost of benefit payments by allowing retirees to receive adjustments for up to eight additional years. The bill creates a long-term actuarial liability for the retirement system without providing offsetting funding mechanisms, performance requirements, or structural reforms. The bill is being considered in the context of ongoing and unresolved issues involving the State Police, including documented overtime irregularities, whistleblower complaints, federal disaster-related overtime reimbursement disputes, and public reporting on misuse of state funds. HB 5046 does not condition expanded benefits on corrective action, compliance findings, or completed audits related to these matters. Additionally, the Legislature is simultaneously considering or has recently enacted measures involving retention incentives, sign-on bonuses, shortened service thresholds for retirement eligibility, and reemployment discussions for retired officers. HB 5046 compounds these fiscal pressures by expanding retirement benefit eligibility without evaluating cumulative impact across personnel, pension, and overtime systems. The bill does not include: • An updated actuarial stress analysis reflecting concurrent incentive programs • A fiscal safeguard tied to system solvency • Oversight or audit prerequisites • Accountability provisions related to prior misconduct or funding misuse Lowering the age threshold for annuity adjustments represents a permanent expansion of state obligations. Once enacted, these benefits cannot be easily reversed without legal and constitutional risk. Enacting such changes while oversight failures and funding controversies remain unresolved is fiscally imprudent. For these reasons, HB 5046 should not advance without comprehensive financial analysis, transparency regarding cumulative costs, and resolution of existing State Police accountability and funding issues.

Fully believe the actions caused by a DUI need to have a higher penalty. Taking or completing alternating someone’s life because of another person’s actions should result in the driver who chose not care about others spending a long time behind bars. West Virginia as a whole allows too many people to get off clean, allowing others to feel that the consequences for their actions are very manageable.

PASSED 🩵

I hope baylea’s law passes