Important transparency issue

This part is significant:

• Advisory Group meetings do NOT have to be open to the public

• Their documents are NOT subject to public records (FOIA) requests

In short:

The public cannot attend these meetings or request their internal records.

This is unusual and may raise transparency concerns. I seriously have a problem with this. There is no way that it is reasonable that there is no transparency for this. In fact a report should be published at the end of the year with what the money was used for, and what was discovered by the research group.

Delegate Crouse

It’s difficult to reconcile requiring cameras in schools while opposing cameras in legislative committees. Transparency should start with lawmakers.

1. I would like to support the codification of religious and medical freedom to choose vaccination exemption for ALL children in our public education system. I, personally, know children who have been vaccine injured. Some effects of vaccines are much more obscure but there is much evidence that they could be linked to many lasting and pernicious conditions such as autoimmune disorders and cancers.
2. One reason for my belief is simply reading the list of ingredients in each of the vaccines. They are filled with ingredients that are classified as toxic and carcinogenic to humans.  In addition, human aborted fetal cells and even monkey cells have been used to create these vaccines. Specifically, the MMR vaccine was developed using aborted fetal cell line.
3. It is simply illogical to force people who have real and reasonable concerns to have a foreign substance injected into their body to protect those who have already been immunized and therefore are SAFE from exposure and harm from the unvaccinated.
4. Finally, I find that there is a major double standard in practice throughout our state that should cause MUCH liability to our State and county Boards of education who have ignored the exemption that was put in place by our Governor.  For schools to discriminate against our students and deny them a public education because they are unvaccinated but allow our sports teams to play out of state or private school whose students may be unvaccinated shows a blatant hypocrisy that is akin to bullying.

1. Please get this bill to the senate.  Wv finally deserves to send their children to school,  healthy & unvaccinated,  if they choose. Just like the schools in VA, Ohio & others ! Thank you

In opposition to this bill.

SUPPORT Response to HB 4393

Requiring the development and implementation of statewide prevention plan.

January 17, 2026

OPPOSITION, but CONDITIONAL SUPPORT to HB 4414

Relating to the sex offender registration act

January 16, 2026

1. Removal of the residency restriction, which is NOT supported by the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), nor the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office's SORNA Substantial Implementation Review, State of West Virginia. (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016) To include such a provision would almost certainly lead to costly litigation, which has been decided unfavorably throughout the United States.
2. Removal of all references to the collection of DNA samples for registrants under a civil regulatory schema for registering only, and not related to a criminal conviction in WV.
3. Reclassification of certain offenses, which are currently classified as lifetime (aka AWA' Tier III') but which, according to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II'). This approach will allow limited law enforcement resources to be directed toward more serious offenses.
4. Addition of the 5-year "Clean Record" credit outlined in §115 of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006." (Sensenbrenner, 2006) This approach is consistent with federal law and will remove the less severe offenses from the list.
5. Update by striking the updating to registry change reporting requirements from "within 10 business days" to "within 3 business days," which does not make West Virginia NOT substantially compliant. (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016)
6. Update to §15-12-2 (d) to make the current requirement for the person forced to register of "…provide or cooperate in providing at a minimum…" more understandable, similar to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" §114. (Sensenbrenner, 2006)
7. Addition of exemptions from public display/access on the WV Registry of (a) 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1") category registrants and (b) 'juvenile sex offenders' who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of their offense. Having 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1"), low-risk registrants on the public registry does not enhance public safety, nor does having 'juvenile sex offenders' visible/accessible on the public registry, as well as the moral implications it raises.
8. Updates to several highlighted items in the bill make it void for vagueness and require clarification, etc.

1. Support is conditioned on removing the residency restriction, which is NOT supported by the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) nor a recognized shortfall to substantial compliance according to the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office's SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016).
   • There is also no empirical evidence that the presence or distance restrictions make anyone safer. In fact, they do the opposite.
     • In its decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals not only agreed but went on to declare that adding geographic exclusionary zones, among others, made Michigan's SORNA, post its 2006 and 2011 amendments, punishment and therefore could not be applied retroactively (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Moreover, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geographic exclusionary zones and in-person reporting requirements constitute onerous restrictions unsupported by evolving research and best practices on recidivism, rehabilitation, and community safety. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Additionally, Human Services professionals and nationally recognized experts on sexual abuse and sex offender legislation agree that distance restrictions are counterproductive. According to Gina Puls (Puls, 2016), residency restrictions, which prevent sex offenders from living within an established distance of various places where children gather, have created enormous hardship for released sex offenders as they attempt to reintegrate into society, and the effectiveness of these laws has increasingly been rejected.
   • Establishing presence or distance restrictions expands the use and impact of registry law in West Virginia. It invites litigation if passed, as it shifts the WV registry from a "civil regulatory schema" to a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed." (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
     • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan's SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
2. Support is conditioned on removing all references to DNA sampling from registrants.
   • Adding DNA sampling to §15-12-2 is unnecessary, as WV code §15-2B-6 already codifies the collection of DNA samples upon conviction for registry offenses in West Virginia and those with equivalent offenses accepted from another state under any interstate compact or other reciprocal agreements.
   • Including DNA sampling to §15-12-2 would only impact people moving untethered to West Virginia who must register, i.e., not via a supervised interstate compact agreement or similar agreements—for these people, being forced to provide a DNA sample simply for registering invites litigation if passed as it transitions the WV registry from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and US Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed." (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and US Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
3. Support is conditioned on reclassifying the following offenses, which are classified as lifetime (aka AWA' Tier III') but which, according to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II'):
   • Tier III to Tier II
     • 61-8A-1 et seq, §61-8B-9, §61-8B-11b, §61-8C-1 et seq, §61-8D-5, §61-8D-6, §61-8-12, §61-14-5(b), and §61-14-6(b) when the offense is NOT against a minor who has NOT attained the age of 12 years – these offenses should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II') category when not committed against anyone not a minor who has NOT attained the age of 12.
     • 61-3C-14b and §61-14-6(a) – these offenses should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II') category regardless.
   • Tier I
     • Additionally, §61-8-A-9 (1^st and 2^nd offenses) and §61-8c-3a should be specifically called out as 15 years (aka AWA' Tier I'). Language needs to be added that specifies that all offenses where the sentencing judge made a written finding that the offense was sexually motivated and where the sentence is classified as a misdemeanor should be registerable as 15 years (aka AWA' Tier I').
4. Support is conditioned on the addition of the 5-year "Clean Record" credit outlined in §115 of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides a 5-year "clean record" reduction in registry requirements for Tier 1 (aka WV 15-year registrants) (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and this provision needs to be added to HB 4414 and ultimately to WV §15-12-2. This credit provision must be coded as automatic upon review without the registrant's request or court proceedings.
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides a tier reduction for a "clean record" from Tier III (aka WV lifetime registrants) to Tier II (aka WV 25-year registration) (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and this needs to be added to HB 4414 and ultimately to WV §15-12-2. This credit provision must be coded as automatic upon review without the registrant's request or court proceedings.
5. Support is conditioned on striking the updating to registry change reporting requirements from "within 10 business days" to "within 3 business days."
   • Changing the current registry update requirement from within 10 business days to within 3 business days does not make West Virginia NOT substantially compliant (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016); however, it will cause many more technical registry violations, requiring judicial resources to process, incarcerate, and supervise post-release, and significant associated unnecessary costs.
6. Support is conditioned on updating §15-12-2 (d) to delineate registrant vs State registry items.
   • The current language in §15-12-2 (d) requires the person forced to register to "provide or cooperate in providing" items they do not know of nor have control over. The language must be updated to make it more understandable by delineating between the registrant's and the State's responsibilities, similar to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) §114.
   • 15-12-2 (d) should be updated to delineate the registry requirements that the registrant must provide and those that are the purview of the State, similar to how the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) §114 delineates them.
   • As it stands today, registrants are expected to "provide or cooperate in providing" items not under their purview for which they have no means of providing, e.g.,
     • Date of all arrests;
     • Date of all convictions;
     • Status of parole, probation, or supervised release; and
     • Outstanding arrest warrants, etc.
7. Support is conditioned on the addition of exemptions from public display/access on the WV Registry of (a) 15-year (aka AWA "Tier1") category registrants and (b) juvenile registrants.
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides for optional exemptions of:
     • "Any information about a tier I sex offender convicted of an offense other than a specified offense against a minor," and
     • "Any other information exempted from disclosure by the Attorney General." (Sensenbrenner, 2006)
   • HB4414 needs to add specific language using the optional exemptions above:
     • To provide WV registrants classified as 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1") exemption from display/access on the WV public registry, and
     • To provide WV juvenile registrants, those who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of their offense, with an exemption from display/access on the WV public registry.
8. Support is conditioned on the updates to several highlighted items in the bill, which make it void for vagueness, require clarification, etc.
   • The proposed updates to West Virginia Registry §15-12-2. (d)(8) removes the requirement to provide "screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the internet" and adds the requirement to provide the "Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of any computer or electronic device of the registrant."
     • First, screen names, user names, aliases, and IP addresses are not included in the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" schema; as such, if the bill's purpose is to be taken seriously, then §15-12-2. (d)(8) should be struck. In addition, recent federal case law has concluded that collecting internet identifiers from registrants violates the First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
     • Second, the above requirement to provide IP addresses is not feasible as the standard for IP addresses is that they are dynamic, NOT static (Network Fundamentals - Internet Protocol and IP Addressing | Information Security | University of Houston-Clear Lake, n.d.), and constantly change with the location the device connects to the internet, i.e., coffee shop, work, home, etc. consequently providing an IP address, which changes constantly and frequently, is nonsensical.
     • In addition to 1. a. & 1. b. above, the proposed update and addition of WV §15-12-2-10 (b) include a distance restriction from a "child daycare facility," which is insufficiently defined. It would be difficult for registrants to know with certainty how to comply with this language, given that "daycare" isn't explicitly defined. As written, the clause would not likely survive a "void for vagueness" challenge.
       • The "void-for-vagueness doctrine" requires a statute to be clear enough for those subject to it to understand what conduct would render them liable to its penalties. (Void for Vagueness and the Due Process Clause, n.d.) The standard for determining whether a statute provides fair notice is "whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the statute's] meaning." (Galloway v. State, 781 A.2d 851, 2001)

I don’t pretend to understand every aspect of gender identity, but I do understand what happens when politics turns people into symbols instead of neighbors.

HB4143 doesn’t address an urgent problem facing West Virginia. Instead, it sets rigid definitions that would affect many areas of law and policy, with long-term consequences that are difficult to undo. Laws like this don’t reduce conflict. They escalate it, while placing real families and children in the middle.

I ask the Legislature to focus on policies that improve safety, health, and opportunity for all West Virginians, rather than advancing legislation that feels designed to win a political argument rather than solve a real problem.

I oppose House Bill 4038.

This bill limits the rights of rural landowners to use their own property by arbitrarily restricting wind power development. Many landowners choose wind projects because they provide steady lease income that helps keep farms intact, pay property taxes, and support family land that has been held for generations.

Capping wind permits and discouraging new projects reduces local tax revenue and economic activity in rural counties that already struggle to fund schools, roads, and emergency services. These projects bring construction jobs, long-term operations work, and dependable income without extracting or degrading the land.

The provision that reduces coal severance taxes for each new wind project further destabilizes county and municipal budgets by tying local revenue to political decisions instead of predictable tax policy.

West Virginians should not be forced to choose between energy industries. Rural communities deserve the freedom to pursue economic opportunities that work for their land, their families, and their counties.

I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4038.

I respectfully oppose House Bill 4034.

Public schools exist to serve students of all faiths and of no faith. Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom crosses the constitutional line between freedom of religion and government endorsement of religion.

The language in this bill is not neutral or historical. It mandates a specific religious text, in a specific translation, presented prominently in every classroom. That is not about teaching history or civic values. It is a government requirement to display a religious doctrine, which directly conflicts with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

West Virginia’s public schools educate Christian students, Jewish students, Muslim students, Hindu students, students of Indigenous traditions, and students who do not practice any religion. This bill elevates one religious tradition above all others and sends a clear message to many students that their beliefs, or lack thereof, are less welcome in their own classrooms.

I am also concerned about the precedent this bill sets. If the state can mandate the display of one religious text, it opens the door to political and religious pressure on schools that distracts from their core mission: educating children. Public schools should not be battlegrounds for religious or ideological mandates.

Parents already have the right to teach their children religious values at home and through their faith communities. That freedom is not under threat. What is under threat is the principle that public schools remain inclusive spaces governed by constitutional protections, not religious requirements.

West Virginia has many pressing education needs: teacher retention, classroom resources, student mental health, and academic outcomes. This bill does not address those needs.

For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4034.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

OPPOSITION Response to HB 4135

To allow police access to all photo information upon arrest for sex offenders.

January 14, 2026

1. The proposed updates to West Virginia Registry §15-12-2 (d)(8) remove the requirement to provide “screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the internet and add the requirement to provide:
   • Any “online identifier” used by the registrant, which includes:
     • Any email address information, instant message, or chat information;
     • A social networking platform account name or identifier;
     • Any identifier used for communicating on a mobile application or internet website;
     • A mobile telephone number;
     • Any mobile device identification information; and
     • Any other similar internet communication name.

2. First, neither screen names, user names, aliases, nor IP addresses are included in the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” schema; as such, if the bill’s purpose is to be taken seriously, then §15-12-2. (d)(8) should be struck, NOT expanded. Moreover, recent federal case law has concluded that collecting internet identifiers from registrants violates the First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
3. Second, while “email address,” “instant message,” or “chat” may not need further elaboration, the statute does not define nor limit the scope of “social networking platform,” “mobile device identification,” or “other similar internet communication name” information.” Does this include usernames and passwords? What about information for commercial transactions or pure political speech?
4. Third, the law does not specify what local law enforcement or other government officials can do with the identifier information they receive. Under what circumstances, if any, can they disseminate it to the public? What about for internal use? Can the state peruse identifier information at its leisure or only to investigate a specific type of crime?
5. Fourth, how can requiring individuals to disclose their identifier information within three days of an update be seen as anything other than highly onerous and deeply burdening protected speech?

1. The existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) Internet-identifier reporting requirements do not withstand intermediate scrutiny.
   • The statute chills a wide swath of speech activity—regardless of whether such activity could further the commission of a sex crime.
   • The statute has not defined whether or how law enforcement uses internet identifiers to protect the public against the commission of sex crimes.
   • The statute has not defined how the information may or may not be released to the public or how the public could effectively use it to protect themselves.
   • Finally, the current statute and proposed updates (collectively, internet reporting requirements) have not been shown by other states and jurisdictions to serve any government interest, much less a significant interest. (Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209—Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024), 2024)

1. The constitutional problems with the existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) internet-identifier reporting requirements are both readily apparent and significant.
   • Collecting internet identifiers from registrants chills a wide swath of speech activity—regardless of whether such activity could further the commission of a sex crime and violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
   • Collecting internet identifiers from registrants does not meet the intermediate scrutiny standard. Other states and jurisdictions have not shown that it serves any government interest, much less a significant one. (Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209—Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024), 2024)
   • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.” (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences. Specific examples of the punitive nature of this bill are:
     • Piling on onerous restrictions retroactively that are not supported in research or empirical evidence (Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 39 A.3d 200, 209 N.J. 595 2012); and
     • Providing for a felony penalty for non-compliance.
   • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan’s SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Doe v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 3d 672 E.D. Mich. 2015).
   • The existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) Internet-identifier reporting requirements are overbroad.
     • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.”(FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
     • HB 4135 applies to “All registrants,” not just those whose offense involved or had an internet component.
2. The constitutional problems with the proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) “The registrant shall permit inspection of his or her mobile device to verify all identifiers for mobile applications used by the registrant are provided.” is also both readily apparent and significant.
   • Requiring all registrants, regardless of parole, probation, or supervised status, is overbroad.
     • • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
       • HB 4135 applies to “all registrants,” not just those on parole, probation, or under supervision.
   • Requiring registrants performing their civil regulatory reporting duties under §15-12-2 who are not on parole, probation, or supervision to submit to a search and seizure of their person and effects represents an unreasonable search and seizure. It clearly violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Library of Congress, n.d.)and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.)

Works Cited