Public Comments

Is it possible to focus efforts for education on things that will actually help students? The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled via Stone v. Graham (1980) that it is unconstitutional, a direct violation of the First Amendment to post the 10 Commandments or any other religious texts in public schools. All this will lead to is lawsuits that eat away state funds and time in court. It's already been struck down in states that have tried to do this in the courts as recently as 2025. We the people are tired of seeing the same bills that violate our constitutional rights be introduced session after session. Unless you are going to also post religious texts of the 4,000 other recognized religions in this world, which would still violate the religious rights of those who are agnostic or atheist because you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, then you have no constitutional right or authority to post the 10 Commandments in public schools. Would it make you comfortable if schools posted texts for the Quran? Pagan or Wiccan texts? Beliefs of L Ron Hubbard for Scientology?

I am writing to express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed legislation that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public schools. While I respect the religious and historical significance that these texts hold for many people, this bill represents a clear violation of the separation of church and state and an erosion of religious freedom, principles that are foundational to our democracy.

Public schools are not places of worship; they are spaces for learning, inclusion, and respect for students of all faiths and of no faith at all. Mandating a religious display endorsed by the state sends a chilling message to students and families whose beliefs differ. It risks alienating non-Christian students, undermining their sense of belonging and safety in schools that are meant to serve everyone equally.

This bill is not about history or morality, it is about government endorsement of a specific religious doctrine, which has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Passing such a measure would invite costly legal challenges, divert public funds from classrooms, and sow division among communities.

If the goal is to promote character, ethics, and respect, there are inclusive ways to do so without elevating one faith tradition above others. We can teach civic values, empathy, and critical thinking through shared democratic principles, not religious mandates.

I urge lawmakers to reject this bill in defense of religious liberty, constitutional integrity, and the inclusive spirit of public education. Our students deserve schools that unite rather than divide, and legislation like this moves us dangerously in the opposite direction.

I am writing to express my strong opposition and grave concern regarding any proposal to eliminate standardized testing in West Virginia’s public schools. While conversations about assessment reform are valid and necessary, removing standardized testing entirely would have devastating financial and educational consequences for our state.

Federal law, specifically the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires states to administer annual assessments in reading, math, and science as a condition of receiving federal education funding. If West Virginia were to eliminate these tests, we would immediately forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds that support critical programs for students, including Title I services for low-income schools, special education supports, teacher development, and afterschool programs.

These funds are not optional or easily replaced. West Virginia’s state budget simply cannot absorb such a financial loss without catastrophic impacts on classrooms, staffing, and student services. The result would be larger class sizes, fewer resources, and diminished opportunities, especially for our most vulnerable students who rely most on federally supported programs.

While there is room for improvement in how assessments are designed and used, completely eliminating standardized testing is neither practical nor responsible. Instead, our focus should be on using assessment data more effectively in order to identify gaps, improve instruction, and ensure accountability while continuing to advocate for fairer, more meaningful ways to measure student learning.

I urge lawmakers to reject any proposal that jeopardizes our state’s compliance with federal education requirements. The long-term cost to our students and schools far outweighs any short-term political gain. West Virginia cannot afford to lose this essential funding or the educational safeguards that come with it.

I am writing to express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed legislation that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public schools. While I respect the religious and historical significance that these texts hold for many people, this bill represents a clear violation of the separation of church and state and an erosion of religious freedom, principles that are foundational to our democracy.

Public schools are not places of worship; they are spaces for learning, inclusion, and respect for students of all faiths and of no faith at all. Mandating a religious display endorsed by the state sends a chilling message to students and families whose beliefs differ. It risks alienating non-Christian students, undermining their sense of belonging and safety in schools that are meant to serve everyone equally.

This bill is not about history or morality, it is about government endorsement of a specific religious doctrine, which has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Passing such a measure would invite costly legal challenges, divert public funds from classrooms, and sow division among communities.

If the goal is to promote character, ethics, and respect, there are inclusive ways to do so without elevating one faith tradition above others. We can teach civic values, empathy, and critical thinking through shared democratic principles, not religious mandates.

I urge lawmakers to reject this bill in defense of religious liberty, constitutional integrity, and the inclusive spirit of public education. Our students deserve schools that unite rather than divide, and legislation like this moves us dangerously in the opposite direction.

I am writing to express my deep and unequivocal concern regarding the proposed legislation that would establish a registry of individuals with disabilities. While I understand that such measures are often presented under the guise of improving services or coordination, this proposal raises serious ethical, legal, and human rights concerns that cannot be overlooked.

Creating a registry of disabled individuals fundamentally undermines the principles of privacy, dignity, and autonomy that every person deserves. History has shown, repeatedly and painfully, that tracking or labeling people based on disability status can lead to stigmatization, discrimination, and even abuse. The very existence of such a registry could discourage individuals from seeking needed supports or disclosing disabilities for fear of being cataloged or targeted.

Moreover, the bill risks violating federal protections, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, both of which were enacted to ensure equality and prevent systemic discrimination. This registry would move our state backward, reintroducing segregation-era thinking under a new label of “data collection.”

If the true goal is to improve access to services or streamline support, there are safer, more ethical pathways—ones that empower individuals with disabilities rather than surveil them. We should be investing in inclusive policy design, community partnerships, and consent-based data systems that respect individuals’ rights and voices.

I urge legislators to reject this bill outright and instead consult with the disability community to craft solutions that uplift rather than marginalize. Our society must never normalize the idea of tracking people for the simple fact of being disabled.

This is a devastating step in the wrong direction for West Virginians, who not only pride themselves on their sense of community but the right to follow their conscience on issues related to immigrant community members. The use of “illegal alien” is dehumanizing of all individuals who have basic human rights and must have access to due process. When you dehumanize “the other,” you risk the whole of humanity and invite further abuses to one another that violate cultural norms. Truly, this is terrible. Not only is violation of the right to due process unconstitutional for these individuals, but you dare to make citizens complicit in this violation of basic human rights. How will I be protected in the future from legal action for FAILURE to assist in situations involving threat of or active violent harm to immigrant families, as is so widely seen in places like Minneapolis as of January 2026. You have to understand that many simply MORALLY will be unable to comply with this proposed “law.”

I agree that this bill needs to be passed.  It's a waste of time to take vichicles to shop to get inspected. If you look at the cars and trucks on the roads, who actually keeps up with the ones that have issues.  I see carsase and trucks driving around with several violations so the sticker seems to be a waste of time to get, just another way to collect money from the already poor people of West Virginia.  Please pass this bill. Sincerely Jarrett Riffle

While I agree that moral responsibility ultimately rests with the individual, family, and community, not the government or schools, I am concerned that this bill embeds ideological premises into the public education curriculum under the guise of “education.”

The bill’s own text affirms that parents, families, and communities bear the primary responsibility for moral and family life education. Yet it then mandates that public schools provide specific instruction tied to pregnancy options — including adoption — in health settings. This approach conflates personal beliefs about morality and family responsibility with state-mandated educational content.

Public education should inform, not indoctrinate, and parents should have the freedom to guide their children’s moral development without prescriptive instruction from the state. Requiring teachers and schools to deliver content framed in a particular ideological context risks alienating families whose beliefs differ and may chill open, evidence-based discussion in the classroom.

If West Virginia wants students and young adults to understand adoption, that information can be made voluntarily available through optional resources, counseling services, and partnership with community organizations — rather than through a requirement that inserts specific messaging into every local district’s sex-education program.

I urge you to reconsider HB 4105’s mandate and instead respect a parent-centered, choice-driven approach to moral and family life education. Public schools should support families, not substitute for them.

I am in favor of HB4509. Efforts for economic growth must not undermine the communities that will shoulder the burden of large data centers. Local municipal authority is essential for transparency among citizens and surrounding industries.

• HB 4376 creates a narrow prohibition on familial appointments but does not address the acknowledged limits of ethics oversight.
• Negligence and corruption remain non-actionable unless tied to specific enumerated violations under §6B-2-5.
• The bill does not expand jurisdiction, enforcement tools, or accountability pathways.
• Without broader statutory reform, unethical conduct that does not fit a predefined category will continue to evade oversight.

Delegate Mallow,

Once again, the Legislature is being asked to spend its time and the public’s money advancing legislation that directly conflicts with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

HB 4034 requires public schools to display a specific religious text—the Ten Commandments—in every classroom, in a prescribed size, format, and wording. This is not student religious liberty. This is government-mandated religious expression in a compulsory public setting. The distinction matters, and it has been settled law for decades.

Courts have already ruled on this issue. Repeatedly. Mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms constitutes government endorsement of religion, regardless of whether the materials are privately donated or publicly funded. Reintroducing this bill does not make it more constitutional; it only makes it more predictable that taxpayers will be left footing the bill for inevitable litigation.

As someone who works daily in public education, I find it deeply frustrating that this proposal is introduced while our schools face real, urgent challenges:
• Students struggling with basic literacy and numeracy
• Staffing shortages and burnout
• Underfunded special education and mental health supports
• Attendance and behavioral crises that materially impact learning

Schools do not need symbolic wall displays. They need resources, support, and evidence-based policy.

This bill also creates practical problems for districts: it is an unfunded mandate, it places administrators and teachers in the middle of a culture war they did not ask for, and it exposes school systems to legal risk for no educational benefit whatsoever.

Public schools serve students of many faiths and no faith at all. The Constitution protects everyone’s right to believe, not the government’s right to instruct.

I urge you to reconsider the priorities reflected in HB 4034 and to respect the longstanding constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Our students deserve serious solutions to serious problems, not performative legislation that distracts from the real work of improving education in West Virginia.

Respectfully,
Mariah Richards

    I am strongly opposed to HB-4414 because I own my home and have lived in it for almost 13 years. Unfortunately, I am less than 1,000 feet from a playground, so I will be forced to move and find a new home by January 1, 2027.  I get along really well with all my neighbors and have not had any problems since I moved here. I am over 65 and on a fixed income, and where I live is close to my doctor and other places, such as a hospital and grocery stores. HB-4414 to me is a form of punishment in forcing me to either sell my house that is paid off, or keep it and incur the cost and upkeep. I will be forced to try to find a new place to live, which will not be easy due to the residency restrictions, and other reasons such as if I buy a new house, which I really cannot afford to do, will my new neighbors want me in their neighborhood? Or will they try to make living there so difficult for me that I have to move again? As far as renting an apartment goes, good luck finding a decent apartment or anything at all being an RSO, because landlords and property management companies will not rent you an apartment. And if you are lucky enough to find an apartment, it has to be in a non-restrictive area.  What makes things even more difficult for me is that I also have a small dog and a cat that I have had for years. Will I have to get rid of them as well?

   The residency restrictions to me appear to be a punitive measure that is only going to create more homeless registered sex offenders. Applying these restrictions to registered persons retroactively who have lived in the “restricted areas” for years with no problems before the law is passed can be seen as a form of punishment and unconstitutional as found in cases in other states. I was sentenced in Michigan and was deemed a tier 1 offender, which is the lowest risk level, and sentenced to 15 years on the registry. If West Virginia had a tier system like Michigan, I could have petitioned for removal 3 years ago and would be removed by completing my registration sentence in 2 years. West Virginia needs to adopt a 3-tier system and to give people who are tier 1 a way to get off of the registry after 10 years for good behavior. That is why I am in agreement with WVRSOL in their opposition, but conditional support to HB-4414.

• prior income tax cuts,
• declining or uncertain federal funding,
• and agency directives to cut budgets without replacement funds,

1. A transparent fiscal impact statement,
2. Identification of which services will be reduced or eliminated,
3. Assurance that essential agencies will not absorb disproportionate harm.

• Require public disclosure of mine safety program standards, approval criteria, or compliance findings;
• Mandate independent or third-party review of safety programs;
• Provide clear worker participation or whistleblower protections in the approval process;
• Specify enforcement benchmarks, penalties, or corrective timelines for unsafe conditions.

• Undermines the medical cannabis program by creating parallel, less-regulated psychoactive markets;
• Shifts risk onto consumers without medical oversight or standardized dosing;
• Creates enforcement ambiguity between legal hemp, controlled substances, and medical cannabis;
• Disproportionately impacts public health while benefiting unregulated commercial actors.

• The First Amendment bars the government from endorsing religion in public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical classroom mandate in Stone v. Graham (1980), holding that requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms lacked a secular legislative purpose and violated the Establishment Clause.  
• The Court has also held that Ten Commandments displays are unconstitutional when the government’s purpose and context show a religious objective, as in McCreary County v. ACLU (2005).  
• Supporters sometimes cite Van Orden v. Perry (2005), but that case involved a long-standing outdoor monument on capitol grounds with a specific historical context—not a mandatory, universal classroom posting aimed at captive K-12 audiences.  

• Louisiana: A federal appeals court blocked Louisiana’s Ten Commandments classroom-display law as “plainly unconstitutional,” relying in part on Stone v. Graham.  
• Arkansas: A federal judge blocked enforcement of Arkansas’s law in several districts, finding it likely violates church-state separation principles.  
• Texas: A federal judge temporarily blocked Texas’s classroom-display law, and additional related injunctions/orders have required districts to remove postings while litigation continues.  

• HB 4034 requires universal classroom posting but does not create a clear statewide compliance/funding plan; it instead authorizes public spending to replace/buy displays.  
• The mandate increases the risk of diverting time and money from instruction and student services into compliance and legal defense.

• prioritization of housing stabilization or displacement prevention for residents after floods,
• transparency showing how Trust Fund disbursements reduce resident-level harm, or
• accountability when funds primarily offset governmental costs rather than community recovery.

1. Require reporting on resident-level outcomes, not just project or agency expenditures;
2. Prioritize funding uses that directly address housing loss, displacement, and community recovery when FEMA Individual Assistance is unavailable; and
3. Add transparency standards ensuring the Flood Resiliency Trust Fund does not function solely as a reimbursement mechanism for government operations while residents remain uncompensated.

Please SUPPORT HB 4547.  Add it to Judiciary Committee agenda.

Unlike other personal choices (like what you eat or wear), vaccination status affects others. A child who is not vaccinated against measles can transmit the virus before even showing symptoms. Parents retain the freedom to not vaccinate, but that choice comes with the consequence of having to use alternative education, such as homeschooling or certain private options that don't receive state funding. Children with cancer or organ transplants cannot be vaccinated. Their "freedom" to participate in public life depends entirely on their peers' vaccination status. By allowing religious exemptions, the state is essentially choosing the "religious freedom" of one group over the "freedom to live/physical safety" of another. On top of that, outbreaks are expensive. Managing a single measles case can cost public health departments tens of thousands of dollars in contact tracing, quarantine enforcement, and medical care. Religious exemptions often lead to geographic clusters of unvaccinated individuals. When a disease enters such a cluster, it can spread rapidly, potentially jumping to the wider community.

I respectfully support the bill proposing antler restrictions on the second buck harvest in West Virginia, as it represents a science-based approach to improving herd quality, hunter opportunity, and long-term conservation.

Implementing antler restrictions on the second buck would allow more young bucks to reach maturity, improving age structure and overall herd health. States that have adopted similar measures have seen increased numbers of mature bucks, improved breeding dynamics, and greater hunter satisfaction without reducing participation.

This proposal strikes an important balance between opportunity and responsibility. Hunters would still be able to harvest a buck early in the season, while the antler restriction on the second buck encourages selectivity and stewardship. It rewards patience and ethical decision-making while preserving opportunity for youth and first-time hunters.

Additionally, this measure aligns with the interests of the majority of hunters who value seeing a healthier herd, more balanced sex ratios, and improved chances at mature deer over time. It also helps ensure that management decisions prioritize long-term sustainability rather than short-term harvest numbers.

Adopting antler restrictions for the second buck is a reasonable, forward-thinking step that supports wildlife conservation, hunting tradition, and the future of deer hunting in West Virginia. I urge you to support this bill.

Hello!

With the passage of this bill, where would the erosion of our civil liberties stop? What possible good does this database do for the people who are on it? At what point does it move from a voluntary action to a required one and are we going to be secure with the information these people are asked to provide? That doesnt even start to address the idea that these sponsors think its ok to ask another human being to put themselves onto a list to "help law enforcement". How dare you treat these people like this instead of addressing the root causes. Instead of wasting our time and tax payer money on a trash bill like this ,why cant we fund better services for people who need it throughout life and train our police to more quickly identify potential needs? I am not even onto the meat of the bill, I could sit here and write for HOURs on different sections. Yet again, another short term attempt for a broader issue our legislature is unwilling to address for ALL of us

West Virginia should keep the youth deer season doe-only and not allow buck harvest in order to protect herd quality, support long-term conservation goals, and preserve the original intent of the youth season.

The youth season was created to introduce young hunters to the sport in a low-pressure, educational environment while promoting responsible wildlife management. Allowing buck harvest during this season undermines that purpose by shifting the focus toward trophy opportunity rather than learning, ethics, and conservation.

From a biological standpoint, buck harvest—especially of young bucks—can negatively impact age structure and future breeding potential. West Virginia has worked for years to improve herd balance and buck age classes, and opening buck harvest during youth season risks reversing that progress. Doe-only harvest aligns with sound management by helping control population levels without compromising buck quality.

Additionally, allowing buck harvest during youth season creates increased pressure on bucks before the regular seasons begin, which is unfair to other hunters and inconsistent with the principle of equitable opportunity. Youth hunters already enjoy a unique advantage with an early season; keeping it doe-only ensures that advantage supports conservation rather than competition.

Finally, a doe-only youth season emphasizes mentorship, patience, and respect for wildlife—values that shape ethical hunters for life. Protecting the integrity of the youth season protects the future of hunting in West Virginia.

For these reasons, West Virginia should maintain the youth deer season as doe-only and not allow buck harvest.