Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
West Virginia Legislature

87th Legislature

Public Comments

2026 Regular Session HB5376 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 20:11
HB 5376 requires toxicology testing “as soon as possible” after any fatal crash.  That sounds neutral, but in practice it can systematically disadvantage medical cannabis patients because THC blood/serum thresholds and detection do not reliably show current impairment. West Virginia’s medical cannabis law itself uses a 3-nanogram active THC in blood serum standard in patient prohibitions, showing the state already relies on nanogram-style cutoffs for cannabis.  Research summarized by the Marijuana Policy Project and AAA Foundation findings indicate there is no THC concentration that reliably predicts impairment like alcohol, and regular users may exceed per se cutpoints days after last use despite no evidence of impairment.  Mandating toxicology after fatal crashes increases the likelihood that lawful patients are treated as impaired based on residual THC, shifting investigation and blame away from actual crash causation (speed, roadway conditions, distraction, vehicle failure, or another driver’s conduct). Public safety should be based on observable impairment and driving behavior, not a biomarker that can persist after impairment ends.  
2026 Regular Session HB5375 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 20:05
oppose HB 5375 because it expands court involvement in school attendance matters in a way that disproportionately harms low-income families, rural households, and families facing access barriers, while failing to address the root causes of chronic absenteeism. 1.  Escalation from attendance issue to court control Under existing law, repeated truancy may already result in criminal proceedings against a parent or guardian under WV Code §18-8-2. HB 5375 expands this framework by creating a new truancy-specific diversion and delayed sentencing structure, allowing courts to impose supervision, compliance conditions, and extended jurisdiction tied to attendance metrics. This shifts truancy from an educational issue into a prolonged justice-system matter, particularly for families who lack transportation, reliable housing, or flexible work schedules. 2.  Financial penalties and inability to pay Truancy enforcement may result in fines, court costs, compliance requirements, and program obligations. While constitutional law prohibits incarceration solely for inability to pay, families who cannot pay still face:
  • repeated court appearances,
  • prolonged supervision,
  • risk of contempt findings if non-compliance is deemed “willful,” and
  • extended legal control over parents and students.
HB 5375 does not require early ability-to-pay determinations or cap cumulative financial exposure, meaning families with fewer resources remain under court oversight longer than families who can resolve cases quickly through payment. 3.  Economic exclusion from civic participation Although West Virginia law does not remove voting rights for truancy or inability to pay (WV Const. art. IV, §1; WV Code §3-2-2), prolonged court supervision and financial pressure functionally limit civic participation. Families under ongoing legal obligations often lack the time, money, transportation, or security to:
  • attend public meetings,
  • advocate for policy change,
  • challenge school or government practices,
  • or participate meaningfully in local governance.
This creates a pay-to-participate reality, where economic status determines who can engage in reform, even though legal voting rights technically remain intact. 4.  Failure to address root causes of absenteeism HB 5375 emphasizes enforcement, supervision, and compliance but does not require that underlying barriers be resolved before criminal involvement, including:
  • lack of school transportation,
  • rural distance to schools,
  • disability or medical needs,
  • housing instability,
  • caregiving responsibilities,
  • or approved alternative education arrangements.
Without mandatory access-based interventions, the bill risks punishing families for circumstances beyond their control. 5.  Risk of disproportionate impact By tying relief to compliance capacity rather than access solutions, HB 5375 disproportionately impacts:
  • low-income families,
  • rural households,
  • families already interacting with courts or state agencies,
  • and communities historically subject to higher levels of surveillance and enforcement.
Education policy should reduce barriers to attendance, not expand pathways into the justice system. Conclusion HB 5375 increases court leverage over families without ensuring transportation, access, or financial protections. While it does not formally strip voting rights, it creates economic and legal pressures that effectively exclude those without resources from meaningful civic participation and reform. For these reasons, HB 5375 should be rejected or substantially amended to prioritize access-based solutions over punitive enforcement.
2026 Regular Session HB5372 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 19:49
I oppose House Bill 5372 (2026), which would allow persons 18–20 years old to carry a concealed deadly weapon without a permit — treating them the same as persons aged 21 and older under current law.  Key facts about the bill:
  • It would remove existing criminal penalties for carrying a concealed deadly weapon without a permit for people age 18–20.  
  • It amends current sections of the West Virginia Code (§61-7-3, §61-7-6, §61-7-7) to expand concealed carry eligibility to include younger adults.  
Reasons for opposition (factual basis):
  1. Public safety concerns: Expanding concealed carry without a permit to individuals as young as 18 removes a licensing and vetting requirement for a demographic with less life experience and, statistically, higher rates of risky behavior, which could increase accidental shootings or confrontational uses of deadly force.
  2. Training and accountability: Current law’s permit process includes safety training and background checks. Eliminating or bypassing this for 18- to 20-year-olds reduces incentives for standardized firearm safety education.
  3. Potential law enforcement challenges: Law enforcement officers rely on distinctions in licensing to assess risk and enforce weapons laws. Broadening unlicensed carry creates ambiguity that may complicate policing and increase dangerous encounters.
  4. Risk of escalation: Concealed carry without permitting may lead to more armed escalations in disputes that could otherwise be de-escalated, particularly among younger adults.
This bill represents a significant shift in firearm policy with major implications for community safety, training standards, and law enforcement interactions, and should not be advanced without rigorous study of its impacts and consideration of safety safeguards.
2026 Regular Session HB5371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 19:41
I oppose legislation that expands firearm carry on or inside the State Capitol and Capitol grounds. The State Capitol is a sensitive civic space that serves a unique function: it is where residents petition their government, attend hearings, provide testimony, and engage directly with elected officials. Unlike public sidewalks or general public areas, the Capitol hosts high-conflict policy debates, emotionally charged hearings, and vulnerable participants, including constituents, advocates, journalists, students, and staff. Current West Virginia law already permits broad firearm possession statewide while recognizing that certain locations require heightened safeguards due to their function. Courts, schools, and other government facilities maintain restrictions or security controls not because firearm ownership is prohibited, but because order, neutrality, and public access must be preserved. Capitol-carry proposals create several concrete problems:
  1. Public Participation & Intimidation Allowing firearms in legislative spaces risks chilling constitutionally protected activity. Citizens should not have to assess whether armed individuals are present before deciding whether to testify, attend a hearing, or petition their representatives. Even lawful carry can have an intimidating effect in high-conflict political settings.
  2. Lack of Preventive Safeguards These bills typically rely on after-the-fact criminal statutes (such as brandishing or breach of peace) rather than preventive standards, such as:
    • mandatory training for Capitol-specific environments,
    • clear conduct rules for legislative spaces,
    • defined enforcement authority for Capitol Police,
    • or uniform screening and security protocols.
  4. Security & Enforcement Conflicts Expanding carry without clear operational rules places Capitol Police and security staff in an untenable position—forced to distinguish lawful from unlawful behavior in real time during protests, hearings, or emergencies, increasing the risk of escalation rather than safety.
  5. Redundancy Without Public Benefit West Virginia already recognizes firearm rights broadly. Expanding carry into the Capitol does not address a demonstrated safety failure, nor does it solve an identified problem. Instead, it introduces new risks in a space designed for democratic participation, not armed presence.
  6. Inconsistency with Government Neutrality The Capitol should remain a place where government power is exercised through law and debate—not through the implicit presence of weapons. Maintaining firearm restrictions in legislative spaces supports neutrality, accessibility, and public trust.
Conclusion Protecting constitutional rights does not require transforming the State Capitol into an armed environment. Public safety, democratic participation, and the integrity of legislative proceedings are best served by keeping Capitol spaces secure, neutral, and welcoming to all residents, regardless of background or political position. For these reasons, I respectfully urge lawmakers to reject Capitol carry legislation and maintain existing protections for legislative spaces.
2026 Regular Session HB5370 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 19:34
I respectfully submit this comment regarding House Bill 5370, which would amend West Virginia Code § 27-5-7 and related provisions to authorize a mandatory 24-hour hold for individuals suspected of having a substance use disorder while awaiting referral to a mental hygiene commissioner for evaluation. After careful review of the bill text, I must raise the following substantive legal and public-health concerns grounded in statute and constitutional principles. 1. Statutory Due Process and Civil Liberties HB 5370 authorizes involuntary restraint based on suspected substance use disorder without clear statutory standards requiring actual danger, imminent risk, or judicial oversight before detention. This conflicts with established statutory due-process requirements, including:
  • W. Va. Code § 27-5-7(c) presently requires evaluation of dangerousness by a mental hygiene commissioner before involuntary treatment orders; HB 5370 removes this procedural safeguard by permitting a mandatory hold prior to any formal evaluation.
  • Involuntary confinement absent individualized findings of imminent risk of harm raises serious due-process concerns analogous to standards enunciated in Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), requiring clear and convincing evidence before civil commitment.
By lowering the standard to mere “suspicion,” HB 5370 risks arbitrary deprivation of liberty in violation of both the U.S. Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property … except by due process of law”). 2. Freedom of Movement and Personal Autonomy HB 5370’s 24-hour hold restrains freedom of movement without meaningful procedural safeguards:
  • There is no requirement that an impartial decision-maker determine that the individual poses a present danger to self or others before confinement.
  • Neither W. Va. Code § 27-5-8 (emergency admission criteria) nor subsequent sections provide a judicial review mechanism prior to or during the mandatory hold.
The deprivation of physical liberty on a lower evidentiary standard — and without prompt judicial review — infringes core protections recognized in O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), which held that non-dangerous persons cannot be confined involuntarily. 3. Contradiction With State Public Health Aims and Existing Mental Health Statutes West Virginia’s statutory structure for behavioral health prioritizes voluntary, trauma-informed care and clearly defined involuntary commitment procedures:
  • W. Va. Code §§ 27-5-1 et seq. establish explicit criteria for involuntary admission — including “danger to self or others” — which are absent from the proposed 24-hour hold.
  • Rewriting these standards through emergency holds without clearly defined thresholds undermines the legislative framework and creates parallel detention authority not contemplated by existing law.
The effect is to expand state power over individuals based on health conditions rather than conduct meeting statutory criteria. 4. Reinforcement of Structural Stigma and Disparate Impact By equating substance use disorder — a diagnosable health condition — with automatic justification for confinement, HB 5370 embeds structural stigma into statute:
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and SAMHSA explicitly recognize that stigma is a barrier to treatment and recovery. When law itself treats individuals with SUD as categorically dangerous, it reinforces prejudicial attitudes that deter help-seeking.
  • Empirical studies show that involuntary treatment models are less effective than voluntary, evidence-based models in achieving long-term recovery outcomes.
Moreover, subjective criteria like “suspected” are vulnerable to bias in enforcement, disproportionately impacting people of color, low-income individuals, and those already involved with social or criminal justice systems. 5. Chilling Effect on Health Care Engagement Mandating a 24-hour hold without clear standards creates a chilling effect:
  • Individuals at risk or in need of care may avoid disclosing symptoms or risk factors to professionals for fear of involuntary confinement.
  • This undermines the success of preventative and collaborative interventions embodied in West Virginia’s broader behavioral health policies.
Conclusion and Request For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to:
  1. Reject HB 5370 in its current form; OR
  2. Amend it to include:
    • Objective statutory criteria requiring clear evidence of imminent danger before hold is authorized;
    • Prompt judicial review prior to or within 24 hours of detention;
    • Explicit protections for voluntary care pathways;
    • Language that avoids presuming dangerousness solely based on health conditions.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns grounded in statutory text and constitutional protections.
2026 Regular Session HB5362 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 19:25
HB 5362 fails to protect children and instead imposes unnecessary barriers and risks to educational access and choice I oppose House Bill 5362 because, contrary to its stated intent to “protect children,” the provisions in this bill do not safeguard student well-being, educational quality, or parental authority. Instead, the bill introduces arbitrary limits and administrative burdens that harm students and families. 1.  Income Caps Do Not Protect the Child — They Penalize Families • HB 5362 creates a hard income eligibility cutoff ($150,000 and tiered reductions beginning at $75,000). • This cap has no academic or educational justification and arbitrarily denies access to students regardless of need or circumstance. • A family’s income level does not equate to a child’s educational needs or rights. Result: A child’s access to educational opportunity is restricted due to parental income, not the child’s needs. 2.  Requiring Tax Documents Intrudes on Privacy Without Educational Benefit • The bill mandates submission of detailed tax information to qualify for a Hope Scholarship. • There is no evidence that collecting family tax returns improves student outcomes or protects children. • This creates a bureaucratic barrier that disproportionately affects families who may not have easy access to tax records. Result: Students are prevented from receiving educational support due to administrative hurdles that do not benefit their learning. 3.  Mandatory Use of Public School Testing or Services Undermines Choice • HB 5362 would require students in individualized instructional programs (e.g., homeschool, private school) to participate in public school exams and preparatory programs “where available.” • Parents choose alternative education because public school testing methods may not align with their child’s needs, learning styles, or beliefs. • Forced compliance with public school procedures does not protect children — it subjects them to a system they or their parents have opted out of. Result: The bill diminishes genuine educational choice and places unnecessary constraints on students. 4.  Reimbursement Requirements Threaten Access to Services • If students receive certain public school services while participating in non-public programs, HB 5362 would require parents to reimburse the public school system. • This could financially deter families from accessing services that might benefit their child, such as speech therapy, counseling, or specialized instruction. Result: Children may be denied beneficial services due to fear of financial penalty. 5.  Limiting Scholarship Use to In-State Tuition Restricts Educational Opportunity • The bill restricts Hope Scholarship funds to in-state tuition and fees only, eliminating the ability to use funds for accredited out-of-state, virtual, or specialized programs. • Many students benefit from programs not based in West Virginia — especially rural, special-needs, or advanced curriculum programs. Result: HB 5362 restricts viable educational pathways that might be better suited to meet a child’s unique needs. 6.  No Evidence This Bill Improves Student Outcomes • HB 5362 does not include any evidence-based standards tied to student performance, learning growth, or child well-being. • Its primary focus is administrative control and eligibility mechanics, not measurable student protection. Result: The legislation does not demonstrably improve student educational outcomes or safeguard children. Conclusion HB 5362 does not protect the child. Instead, it: ✔️ Restricts access to educational opportunities based on income ✔️ Imposes administrative hurdles unrelated to student success ✔️ Mandates unwanted participation in public school systems ✔️ Discourages use of beneficial services through financial penalties ✔️ Limits educational choices without evidence of improved outcomes A true child-centered education policy should expand access, respect parental rights, eliminate barriers, and focus on outcomes for students — not on controlling funding mechanics or restricting choice.
2026 Regular Session HB5360 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 19:21
I understand why retirees want cost-of-living protection—inflation is real and fixed incomes get squeezed. But I oppose HB 5360 as written because it creates an automatic CPI-based COLA for PERS and TRS retirees starting July 1, 2026 (age 60+, retired 5+ years) without clearly identifying a dedicated, sustainable funding source.   This bill effectively commits the state to ongoing, inflation-linked benefit growth. When that cost isn’t fully funded up front, the burden doesn’t disappear—it gets pushed onto current workers and younger generations (Millennials, Gen Z, Gen A) through higher contributions, reduced services, or future tax hikes. West Virginia is already struggling with basic, life-and-health necessities: •safe and reliable water systems •roads/infrastructure •healthcare access •education access and outcomes Before expanding long-term, CPI-indexed obligations, the Legislature should require: 1.a publicly posted actuarial/fiscal impact estimate, 2.a dedicated revenue stream that does not cannibalize core services, and 3.safeguards like a funded-status trigger, cap, or phased approach so essential services aren’t cut when inflation spikes. Until HB 5360 includes clear, accountable funding and protections for essential public needs, I urge lawmakers to vote NO.
2026 Regular Session HB5359 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 19:18
I respectfully oppose House Bill 5359 because it risks directing significant tax revenue and energy costs toward transmission projects without demonstrated benefits to West Virginia residents and ratepayers.
  1. Lack of clear direct benefit to West Virginians: During legislative hearings, several members of the West Virginia House and Senate expressed concern that high-voltage transmission lines discussed in committee would not benefit electricity customers or the state economy. When asked if the projects would provide local benefits, presenters could not provide specific answers, and producers of these transmission lines acknowledged that no West Virginia substations were included in some proposed routes, meaning power could simply pass through the state to other markets.  
  2. Potential increased costs for ratepayers: Legislators referenced independent analysis suggesting that transmission projects could increase West Virginia electric bills by hundreds of millions of dollars without commensurate improvements in reliability or local economic return.  These costs risk being passed directly to consumers via utility rate mechanisms, while the associated tax and regulatory treatment from HB 5359 could further ease cost recovery for developers.
  3. Disconnect between surplus generation and local electricity cost improvements: Recent reporting found that despite West Virginia’s surplus generation capacity, resident households still pay higher average electricity bills than the national average, largely because export-oriented projects and long-distance lines do not address local distribution inefficiencies.  
  4. Lack of substations and measurable in-state economic impact: One key concern raised by lawmakers is that some long transmission corridors (e.g., the MidAtlantic Resiliency Link) would carry power through West Virginia without building substations or creating significant in-state economic development — leaving ratepayers to shoulder costs without local economic returns.  
For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to withhold approval of HB 5359 until there is clear evidence that (a) affected West Virginia ratepayers benefit directly from these projects; (b) substations and economic investment are reliably tied to West Virginia communities; and (c) tax policies contained in the bill do not unfairly shift costs from developers to local consumers.
2026 Regular Session HB4371 (Judiciary)
Comment by: richard wiseman on February 9, 2026 19:07
Hello I would like you to fully legalized cannabis for adult recreational use and medical use let us grow our own and offer growing classes for those that dont know how to do so. Let us have our freedom I have smoked cannabis for years for back pain because I used to be addicted to pain pills pecocets 10s  to be exact I was hooked on them for 2 years got to smoking some cannabis and got off of the pills for good 18 years clean from all opiates all because of cannabis please make it legal virginia is legal Michigan is legal where missing out on lots of cash with interstate commerce sales of cannabis have cannabis farmers markets like California we need to be a healthier state and I believe cannabis is key to great wealth for out beautiful state if will create more tourism to our state it will create jobs healthier citizens of our beautiful state let us grow what God has given us let's heal and grow as a state green is the new black in reference to coal that where famous for lets have a green rush like Colorado use the cash for peia insurance and education to fix our roads and free alot of prisoners for wrongful arrest and restitution for growing or distribution of a plant that the good lord gave us so consider the benefits to our great state of west virginia God bless all and make it legal
2026 Regular Session HB5336 (Judiciary)
Comment by: John Wires on February 9, 2026 19:02
There are so many people of all ages in these types of situations. My elderly father of 80 years old is a victim of this type of behavior from his 73 year old girlfriend. I have all kinds of audio evidence  as well there is another family she done similar things to their father with a case that went clearn to the West Virginia supreme court. Which had to do with her last boyfriends will and last testament. There is a clear pattern of behavior that can be established. But 2 lawyers have told me nothing can be done about it. At-least with the current laws on the books. I'm begging all of our law makers to pass this bill please.  Thank you for your consideration on this matter and thank you Delegate Kayla Young for introducing this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5336 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cristy Anderson on February 9, 2026 18:59
I absolutely support this with provisions in place to ensure abusers do not manipulate this to further perpetuate harm to victims. Sadly, many abusers use coercive control laws to flip the narrative around. If someone is putting away a little money in preparation for leaving an abusive situation, the abuser will later claim the victim was controlling the money. If a victim says he/she is going to report abusive behavior to the police, the abuser will allege the victim is “threatening.” Coercive control should be codified in our laws, but our courts need trauma informed personnel who can see through the facades and blame shifting to identify who is the true victim and who is the abuser.
2026 Regular Session HB5356 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:55
oppose HB 5356 because it reflects misplaced legislative priorities at a time when West Virginians continue to lack access to basic necessities. HB 5356 amends West Virginia Code §18-2-6 to modify funding and administrative treatment for the Mountaineer Challenge Academy, an alternative education program operated in coordination with the National Guard. While the program itself is not a sports incentive and is framed as an educational intervention, it nonetheless represents continued targeted spending on structured, program-specific initiatives while essential civilian needs remain underfunded. West Virginia faces persistent and well-documented gaps in:
  • primary and preventive healthcare access,
  • mental health and substance-use treatment capacity,
  • food security and nutrition access,
  • affordable housing availability,
  • basic infrastructure and workforce stability.
The Legislature routinely argues that funding for these core needs is limited or unavailable. Yet bills like HB 5356 continue to carve out protected funding streams for specialized programs rather than addressing the root conditions driving educational disruption in the first place: poverty, housing instability, untreated medical and mental health needs, and lack of economic opportunity. Programs such as the Mountaineer Challenge Academy are often positioned as corrective solutions for youth after systemic failures have already occurred. Without first ensuring access to healthcare, housing, food, and stable employment for families, these interventions function as downstream responses rather than prevention. Public funds should prioritize stabilizing communities before expanding or insulating specialized programs. Until West Virginia meaningfully invests in basic living conditions that allow families and students to succeed without intervention, continued program-specific funding represents a reactive approach that does not resolve the underlying causes of educational disengagement. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5356 and urge the Legislature to redirect focus toward comprehensive investments in healthcare, housing, food systems, and economic stability for West Virginians.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: richard wiseman on February 9, 2026 18:54
I think cannabis edibles should be legalized for medical use in west Virginia i am a medical cannabis patient and I need them for my back front a school bus wreck I was involved in when I was 12 it messed up my back for life I need the medical cannabis edibles I would like to see medical gummies and edibles please put wv first and 420 to all
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Regina Squires on February 9, 2026 18:51
I am someone with viral heart failure, as I can not use my medical cannabis in a vape . I would like the option of using edibles as my means of medication. Please take into consideration those of us with breathing issues . Thank you !
2026 Regular Session HB5355 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:49
I oppose HB 5355 because, while it is framed as a certification and quality-control measure, its practical effect would undermine student access to education and worsen existing staffing shortages—particularly in rural and under-resourced counties. HB 5355 allows teaching positions filled by uncertified educators to be treated as “vacant” and reposted annually until a fully certified teacher is hired. In theory, this assumes an available pool of certified teachers ready to fill these roles. In reality, West Virginia already faces chronic teacher shortages, especially in special education, STEM, rural districts, and high-poverty areas. By destabilizing positions currently filled by long-term, provisionally licensed, or emergency-certified educators, this bill would: •increase annual turnover, •discourage qualified but nontraditional educators from staying in the system, •and risk leaving classrooms unfilled or staffed by rotating substitutes. This does not improve educational quality or access for students. It reduces continuity of instruction, weakens student-teacher relationships, and disproportionately harms children in counties that already struggle to recruit certified staff. Moreover, advancing this bill while simultaneously debating cuts to education agencies, alternative governance structures, and nontraditional learning models raises serious concerns. When teacher pay, certification rules, and institutional stability are addressed in isolation—without securing workforce pipelines, training access, and support infrastructure—the result is not reform but fragmentation. Improving teacher quality requires investment in certification pathways, retention, and classroom support—not policies that create annual job insecurity in a workforce the state already lacks. For these reasons, HB 5355 would not achieve its stated goal and should not advance.
2026 Regular Session HB5354 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:42
I oppose HB 5354 because it continues a governance structure that allows agencies to effectively regulate themselves by authorizing, modifying, or repealing their own legislative rules without independent oversight. Under this framework, the same entities that design programs, set standards, grant exemptions, and manage internal operations are also responsible for determining whether those rules remain in effect. That structure undermines the basic principle of separation between rulemaking, enforcement, and evaluation, which is essential for accountability in public administration. West Virginia has already fragmented oversight by splitting agencies and consolidating authority internally rather than creating external review mechanisms. This has resulted in repeated findings of inefficiency, inconsistent enforcement, and limited corrective action, despite ongoing legislative reauthorization of agency rules. HB 5354 does not establish:
  • independent audits or third-party review,
  • conflict-of-interest safeguards between rule writers and program administrators,
  • measurable performance standards tied to continued authorization, or
  • public transparency requirements beyond internal reporting.
Authorizing or reauthorizing rules under these conditions does not strengthen governance. It formalizes a system where agencies assess their own performance and compliance, which is widely recognized in public-sector governance as an inadequate accountability model. For these reasons, HB 5354 does not resolve existing oversight failures and should not advance without structural reforms that introduce independent review, external accountability, and meaningful legislative checks.
2026 Regular Session HB5348 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:24
I respectfully oppose HB 5348 because it expands criminal penalties for pedestrian presence in roadways and rights-of-way without first ensuring that safe, lawful pedestrian infrastructure exists across West Virginia. In many West Virginia communities—particularly older cities, small towns, and rural areas—sidewalks are incomplete, substandard, obstructed, or entirely absent. Streets were often built decades ago under historic right-of-way standards that do not accommodate modern sidewalk widths without major reconstruction. As a result, pedestrians frequently have no choice but to walk along shoulders, edges of roadways, or informal paths. This is not a theoretical concern. For example, the City of Huntington recently adopted a local ordinance establishing a minimum 3-foot sidewalk standard. However, city records show that many neighborhoods lack sidewalks altogether, large portions of existing sidewalks are narrower than the standard, and the city faces a multimillion-dollar backlog in sidewalk repairs. When local or state laws define “safe” pedestrian zones that do not physically exist, pedestrians are effectively pushed into areas that HB 5348 would further criminalize. HB 5348 therefore risks creating situations where people have no lawful place to walk. Disproportionate Harm to People Without Cars or Transit Access This bill would cause particular harm to:
  • people who do not own cars,
  • individuals without reliable access to public transportation,
  • low-income residents,
  • disabled pedestrians,
  • elderly residents,
  • and people who rely on walking for daily necessities such as work, medical care, groceries, and childcare.
In many West Virginia communities, bus service is limited, nonexistent, or unavailable outside narrow corridors or operating hours. Walking is not a choice—it is a necessity. Penalizing pedestrian presence in roadways or rights-of-way without providing sidewalks effectively criminalizes daily life for people who already have the fewest transportation options. Instead of improving safety, HB 5348 shifts the burden of infrastructure failure onto individuals least able to absorb fines, citations, or legal consequences. First Amendment and Public Forum Concerns Public sidewalks and streets have long been recognized as traditional public forums where expressive activity—including protest, leafleting, and solicitation—receives strong constitutional protection. While governments may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions for safety, those restrictions must be narrowly tailored and must leave open realistic alternative channels for movement and expression. If pedestrians and protestors are restricted to sidewalks that are missing, too narrow, or unusable, and are simultaneously prohibited from adjacent roadway areas, the result is the elimination of the forum itself rather than reasonable regulation. That raises serious concerns of overbreadth, vagueness, and inconsistent enforcement. Relevant Northern West Virginia Precedent West Virginia has already seen the legal consequences of overbroad pedestrian and right-of-way enforcement. In Rowand v. City of Morgantown, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, a municipal ordinance restricting panhandling and presence in rights-of-way was challenged as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case resulted in the repeal of the ordinance, vacating of prior convictions, and reimbursement of fines. That case demonstrates that laws restricting pedestrian presence or expressive activity in public rights-of-way—when not narrowly tailored and grounded in actual infrastructure realities—can expose municipalities and the state to legal liability while failing to improve public safety. HB 5348 risks repeating those same errors on a statewide scale. Safety Requires Infrastructure, Not Criminalization If the Legislature’s goal is pedestrian safety, the solution is:
  • identifying where sidewalks and safe pedestrian paths do not exist,
  • investing in pedestrian infrastructure,
  • and adopting context-sensitive standards that reflect real conditions on the ground.
Expanding criminal penalties without addressing infrastructure gaps does not improve safety. It increases risk, shifts responsibility away from the state, and disproportionately harms people who rely on walking because they have no alternative. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to reject HB 5348.
2026 Regular Session HB5345 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Melissa Colagrosso on February 9, 2026 18:17
This bill will stabalize the childcare industry and encourage new childcare businesses to open. New childcare businesses, like all businesses need a sound business plan that demonstrates revenue to repay start up loans for capitol and initial operations. Subsidy payments that fluctuate for attendance variations that are out of the control of the childcare business, such as child illness, parent illness, inclement weather, family vacations are detrimental to the budget forecasts necessary for start up. I often have interested and qualified people who begin the process of starting a childcare in rural WV and then back out because of the risk of unpredictable payments for enrolled children. Twenty-two states are currently paying based on enrollment. West Virginia has been paying based on enrollment for 5 years. This bill will ensure that those individuals who invest in childcare businesses can rely on stable payments for the families who receive subsidy assistance from WV.
2026 Regular Session HB5344 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:16
I oppose HB 5344 because it risks expanding or confusing exemptions in West Virginia weapons law at a time when carry restrictions in sensitive civic spaces—such as areas surrounding public demonstrations and the State Capitol complex—are already contested and subject to inconsistent interpretation. HB 5344 rewrites West Virginia’s definition of “antique firearm” in §61-7-2. Under the same statute, “firearm” is defined in a way that excludes “antique firearms” for most purposes.  As a result, any expansion or alteration in what qualifies as an “antique firearm” can operate as an indirect exemption from state laws that apply specifically to “firearms,” rather than to “deadly weapons” more broadly. This is not a hypothetical concern. The 2026 session includes legislation explicitly focused on clarifying where weapons may be carried around the State Capitol Complex (e.g., SB 747), indicating that public-carry boundaries and enforcement are currently disputed in practice.  In that context, changing definitional carve-outs can create additional loopholes, uneven enforcement, and increased conflict between citizens and law enforcement during constitutionally protected activity such as peaceful assembly. If the intent is simply to mirror federal language, federal law already provides a long-standing definition of “antique firearm” in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(16).  West Virginia should not re-legislate definitions that can later drift or be amended without a full public safety and enforcement impact analysis. For these reasons—redundancy, enforcement risk, and the potential for expanded exemptions through definitional change—HB 5344 should not advance.
2026 Regular Session HB5340 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:10
I oppose HB 5340 because it expands tax incentives for asset-holding entities while West Virginia workers continue to earn among the lowest wages in the nation. West Virginia’s minimum wage is $8.75 per hour, which equals roughly $18,200 annually for full-time work. Median household income in the state is under $60,000, and many residents live well below that level. HB 5340 offers tax advantages based on land ownership and participation in carbon credit markets—activities that are not accessible to minimum-wage workers or most households. The bill does not require:
  • wage increases,
  • job creation tied to livable wages,
  • local reinvestment,
  • or measurable public benefit proportional to the tax revenue forgone.
As written, HB 5340 shifts the tax burden away from higher-earning landowners and investment participants and onto the general public, including workers who already struggle with housing, utilities, healthcare, and food costs. This further entrenches a system where ownership and capital are rewarded while labor is excluded from relief. Public tax policy should prioritize demonstrable public benefit. When incentives are granted to those earning more than the average West Virginian—without wage floors or accountability mechanisms—the result is reduced state revenue and continued wage stagnation. For these reasons, HB 5340 is fiscally regressive and inconsistent with the economic realities facing most West Virginia residents.
2026 Regular Session HB5337 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:05
I understand the safety concerns that motivate HB 5337, particularly the desire to prevent targeted harassment, threats, or violence against public officials and their families. However, as written, this bill raises serious concerns about transparency, unequal protections, and unintended suppression of lawful oversight and public accountability. HB 5337 does not function like comprehensive data-privacy laws in states such as California. It does not establish broad consumer data protections, uniform privacy rights, or clear limits on how personal data is collected, used, or sold. Instead, it creates a narrow, elevated privacy shield for a specific class of government officials, while leaving the general public, journalists, advocates, and whistleblowers without comparable protections. Key concerns include:
  • Unequal application of privacy protections The bill prioritizes privacy for legislators and certain officials without extending equivalent safeguards to ordinary residents, including victims of domestic violence, stalking, or retaliation, who often face similar or greater risks.
  • Chilling effect on transparency and oversight By expanding civil liability for disclosure, the bill risks discouraging lawful reporting, investigative journalism, and public-interest disclosures that rely on accurate identification of public officials acting in their official capacity.
  • Expansion of liability beyond government agencies The bill extends restrictions to private individuals and organizations, increasing the risk of litigation even where information is obtained lawfully, shared for public-interest purposes, or already accessible through public records.
  • Lack of clear guardrails and exemptions The bill does not sufficiently distinguish between malicious disclosure (doxxing, harassment) and legitimate uses such as accountability reporting, ethics investigations, or civic advocacy.
If West Virginia intends to modernize privacy protections, it should do so through comprehensive, neutral, and evenly applied data-privacy legislation, not through selective protections that elevate public officials above the public they serve. Privacy and safety can be protected without weakening transparency, press freedom, or public accountability. HB 5337, as currently drafted, does not strike that balance and should be reconsidered or significantly amended.
2026 Regular Session HB5329 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 18:01
This is unacceptable. Impact fee money is supposed to go directly to infrastructure and public needs created by growth, not be stockpiled as a fiscal cushion for counties after they’ve already cut essentials. West Virginia communities are facing:
  • aging and failing water and wastewater systems,
  • underfunded infrastructure maintenance,
  • and cuts to school meal programs while food insecurity remains high.
Redirecting or “parking” impact fee revenue into operational sinking funds means money collected in the name of growth is no longer guaranteed to fix the very systems under strain. That undermines public trust and shifts the burden back onto residents when services fail. If counties need operating funds, the solution is transparent budgeting and accountability, not quietly loosening restrictions on purpose-specific funds. Growth fees should build roads, repair water systems, and support essential public services — not backfill poor fiscal planning or sit unused while basic needs go unmet. Infrastructure, clean water, and child nutrition are not optional expenses. They are core responsibilities. This bill moves in the wrong direction.
2026 Regular Session HB5326 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 17:58
This bill reflects a pattern where the state is effectively deciding who can afford to live in West Virginia — and who can’t — based on insider access and legacy status. When lawmakers prioritize benefit expansions for select groups who already receive pensions, COLAs, or re-entry privileges, while leaving working residents to absorb rising costs with no comparable relief, the result is not fairness — it’s stratification. People who are currently living, working, and paying taxes in West Virginia are facing: •rising housing costs, •healthcare access gaps, •stagnant wages, •utility and infrastructure failures, •and increased tax burdens. Yet legislative energy repeatedly goes toward protecting or enhancing benefits for groups with political proximity and institutional familiarity, rather than stabilizing the conditions for people trying to survive here now. That is not neutral governance. It is the state choosing which populations are economically viable to remain — and which are expected to leave, struggle, or subsidize others. Public policy should focus first on keeping West Virginia livable for the people who are actively sustaining it, not reinforcing an insider economy that rewards connection over contribution.
2026 Regular Session HB5324 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 17:53
I oppose HB 5324 because it weakens patient protection, undermines public-health principles, and shifts the cost of occupational disease from responsible parties to injured individuals, families, and public systems. 1.  Delays Accountability Until After Irreversible Harm HB 5324 restricts recovery to cases where a plaintiff already has a diagnosed asbestos- or silica-related impairment and explicitly bars damages for increased risk, fear of future disease, or ongoing medical monitoring absent malignancy. Asbestos and silica diseases are long-latency conditions, often developing decades after exposure. Conditioning legal remedies on full manifestation of disease adopts a “wait-until-it’s-too-late” model that contradicts established public-health practice, which prioritizes early intervention, risk mitigation, and prevention. 2.  Creates Legal Barriers for Workers and Rural Patients The bill allows the statute of limitations to begin not only at diagnosis, but when a person “reasonably should have known” to seek medical evaluation. This standard disadvantages:
  • workers exposed years earlier,
  • individuals misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed,
  • rural residents with limited access to occupational specialists.
This provision increases dismissal of claims on procedural grounds rather than merits and does not reflect the medical realities of delayed diagnosis. 3.  Provides Industry Immunity Despite Known Long-Term Risks HB 5324 imposes strict time limits on claims against coal equipment manufacturers (10–12 years from sale or delivery), even though asbestos- and silica-related diseases frequently appear well beyond those periods. Compliance with minimum federal safety standards does not eliminate exposure risk and should not function as retroactive immunity when harm manifests decades later. 4.  Fails to Protect Public Health or Reduce Exposure The bill does not:
  • improve exposure reporting,
  • fund medical monitoring,
  • enhance workplace safety enforcement,
  • or reduce asbestos or silica exposure.
Its stated purpose is judicial efficiency, not patient safety or prevention. As a result, it prioritizes litigation management over human health outcomes. 5.  Shifts Costs to Families and Taxpayers By limiting early accountability and barring compensation for preventive care and monitoring, HB 5324 increases the likelihood that long-term treatment costs will be borne by:
  • patients and families,
  • Medicaid and public health systems,
  • disability and social-service programs,
rather than the entities responsible for exposure. Conclusion HB 5324 does not strengthen public safety or patient protection. It delays accountability until irreversible harm occurs, shields manufacturers despite known long-term risks, and conflicts with evidence-based public-health principles. For these reasons, the bill should be rejected or substantially amended to restore prevention-based protections and access to justice for exposed workers and communities.
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 9, 2026 17:44
HB 5319 raises serious constitutional and legal concerns. While framed as a public-safety measure, the bill effectively criminalizes unavoidable life-sustaining behavior—sleeping, resting, and possessing basic personal property—when performed on public land. Courts have consistently held that this approach violates constitutional protections. Key issues: • Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment): Federal courts have ruled that governments cannot criminally punish people for sleeping or sheltering in public when no adequate alternative shelter is available. In West Virginia, shelter capacity is limited and exclusionary for many individuals (families, disabled people, people with medical needs). Penalizing unavoidable survival behavior under those conditions is unconstitutional. • Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process & Equal Protection): HB 5319 uses overly broad and vague definitions (“camp paraphernalia,” “personal property,” “camping”), giving law enforcement wide discretion. This invites selective enforcement and disproportionately targets unhoused individuals, which courts have repeatedly found violates equal protection and due-process standards. • First Amendment Implications: Public presence—especially near capitols, courthouses, and government buildings—has long been recognized as part of protected petitioning and expressive conduct. Removing people from public spaces through criminal penalties can suppress speech by effect, even if speech is not explicitly mentioned in the statute. • Criminalizing Poverty, Not Solving It: The bill escalates penalties—including jail time—for conditions rooted in lack of housing, not criminal intent. Courts have made clear that the Constitution does not allow punishment based on economic status or homelessness itself. • “Alternative shelter” language is insufficient: Courts have repeatedly ruled that theoretical or unavailable shelter options do not cure constitutional violations. An alternative must be accessible, appropriate, and actually available at the time of enforcement. Conclusion: HB 5319 does not address public health or safety in a constitutional or evidence-based way. Instead, it shifts homelessness into the criminal-justice system, exposing the state to legal liability while worsening human harm. Public policy should prioritize housing access, services, and lawful civil solutions—not incarceration for survival.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Nancy Kincaid on February 9, 2026 16:30
Please oppose this bill that cuts off counting of absentee ballots on election day.  We have two sons who served in the Navy as submarine officers.  People in the service often work around the clock when on duty, are away on deployment for months at a time, and have a lot on their minds.  Giving a cushion of days post-election helps these service people get their votes in and counted!  And with the new post office rule of not post-marking mail when it is dropped at the post office, it adds another layer of difficulty.  This bill would disenfranchise many service men and women, older folks, and people who have trouble getting around. We need to make it easier to get votes counted instead of harder!
2026 Regular Session HB5336 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Robin Bowden on February 9, 2026 16:27
Though I live in N.C,My daughter resides in wv.I am hoping and praying for you all to pass this bill!.my daughter is a victim of domestic violence,and sexual assault,myself,am a survivor of domestic violence.my daughter has lost everything she had,due to her situation,even my grandaughter,due to c.p.s,and the family court in Mercer county,wv.my daughter works,and sha has a home,though the home isn't perfect,those were two of the reasons for the paternal grandmother to file her guardianship petition.when the grandmother's petition was dismissed,due to failure to appear,her daughter files her own so called petition,one that my daughter never received from the family court,or through the mail.i am asking for a bill that would allow Innocent parents to petition the family court for expungement of her full record!i know expungement,only occurs in criminal cases,but what these two woman have done to my daughter ,I believe wholeheartedly is a criminal act.my daughter has not been charged with child abuse or neglect,nor abandonment by law enforcement. The paternal aunt came to my home and picked up my granddaughter,and the basis of a visit.12/7/2023,the paternal grandmother filed an emergency guardianship petition. My daughter has not received due process whatsoever by the family court,nor this second judge,and there's nothing on the document giving my daughter the right to appeal this judges order.my daughter has not signed any waiver of consent to anyone,for she has never met this judge!this judge made a decision,without allowing my daughter due process!the first judges name is on the paternal grandmother's guardianship petition, two months after she had retired from the bench.how?well I've wasted enough of your time,I thank you for understanding,I wish all of you well,and Godbless. Bill HB 5336 PASS, PASS, PASS! Please.        
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jeffrey Gordon on February 9, 2026 16:23
Voting needs to be accessible to all Americans. The facts are that major problems with our election process are false. I want you to vote no on house bill4600
2026 Regular Session HB5348 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Thomas Bloom on February 9, 2026 16:02
the bill should read The Legislature finds that the presence of persons standing in the middle of the roadway, or standing in the right of ways,........................ and should delete Near the roadways. (makes the law very clear and not arbitrary) An exemption for fire personnel, police or other EMS officials. I would also modify the first offense as a warning and to request to leave the area. (documented) This will provide safety to both the motorist and the pedestrian.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shannon Gillen on February 9, 2026 15:50
Hello, and thank you for fighting for West Virginians! I am writing to tell you to PLEASE OPPOSE HB4600. By requiring absentee ballots to be received (rather than postmarked) by 8 PM on Election Day, this bill disenfranchises military personnel, seniors, people with disabilities, and West Virginians working or studying out of state. The bill also reduces the amount of time voters have to request an absentee ballot by one week. HB 4600 disregards West Virginia's strong election safeguards, peddling baseless conspiracy theories that waste time and ignore real issues. Instead of solving problems, it attacks voters and makes it harder for eligible West Virginians to cast their ballots. Additionally, the bill needlessly diverts time and attention away from solving the many real problems facing our state - like access to clean drinking water - while making it harder for eligible West Virginians to vote. HB 4600 would eliminate the current rule allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received before the canvass begins. This change rushes election officials, discards valid votes, and weakens trust in the process. Please. Help protect our Democracy. Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: David Sieg on February 9, 2026 15:48
I support this legislation to legalize edible cannabis sales to the general public in WV. This can help patients deal with pain, insomnia, and stress without addictive opioids.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mike Wolpert on February 9, 2026 14:56
I disagree with this bill. What difference does a few days make?  I feel it just another attempt to make it more difficult to vote. Our elections are not rigged. This is another attempt to sow distrust in our election system.
2026 Regular Session HB5368 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Philip Kaso, Executive Director, WVRSOL on February 9, 2026 14:54
WVRSOL opposes HB-5368 because it creates a publicly accessible domestic violence registry despite overwhelming evidence that registries do not reduce recidivism, improve safety, or prevent additional domestic violence. Moreover, decades of research show registries do not deter crime. HB-5368 explicitly applies retroactively, raising serious ex post facto concerns under Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution. WVRSOL supports vigorous enforcement of domestic violence laws. Even with HB-5368's two-conviction threshold, it's still a public registry, which has been proven not to prevent domestic violence. It is proposed to apply retroactively in violation of constitutional protections and to expose West Virginia to unnecessary litigation. WVRSOL urges the Legislature to reject HB-5368 and avoid expanding registry-based punishment schemes that increase litigation risk without increasing public safety.   Below is the side-by-side legislative analysis of HB-5341, HB-5368, and HB-5253.
  • Threshold for Placement on the Registry
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Trigger for registration Single qualifying conviction involving an intimate partner (with limited judicial discretion for non-intimate partners) At least two qualifying convictions Three or more domestic violence convictions
Scope of offenses Domestic battery, domestic assault, strangulation Same offenses, but repeat-offender based Domestic violence as defined in §48-27-202
Judicial discretion Yes (written findings required for some cases) Minimal None once the threshold is met
  •  Nature and Purpose of the Registry
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Legislative framing Public safety via community awareness Public safety focused on repeat offenders Personal safety and informed decision-making
Regulatory vs. punitive language Declared “regulatory, not penal.” Same Informational and confidential
Access model Public, Internet-accessible registry Public, Internet-accessible registry Confidential, inquiry-based verification
  •  Information Collected from Registrants
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Personal identifiers Extensive (SSN, photo, fingerprints, vehicles, UAVs, internet identifiers) Essentially identical to HB-5341 Minimal (name, DOB, offense type)
Employment/education data Required Required Not collected
Victim identity Non-identifying only Non-identifying only Explicitly excluded
  •  Public Disclosure and Community Notification
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Internet publication Yes Yes No
Community notification Prosecutor-led programs authorized Same None
FOIA treatment Registry exempt but affirmatively disclosed Same The entire registry is confidential and FOIA-exempt
  •  Duration of Registration
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Registration period 10 years from release or supervision 10 years No fixed “registration term.”
Removal mechanism Conviction overturned One of two qualifying convictions was overturned The registry reflects conviction history only
  •  Enforcement and Penalties
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Failure to comply New crimes (misdemeanor → felony escalation) Same No independent registry offense
Probation/parole consequences Mandatory revocation Mandatory revocation Not applicable
  •  Retroactive vs. Prospective Application (NEW)
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Express retroactivity clause Yes Yes No
Statutory language “Applies both retroactively and prospectively.” Same language No retroactivity language
Practical effect Past convictions alone trigger registration Past convictions alone trigger registration Registry placement only after a post-enactment conviction
Use of prior convictions Full trigger Full trigger Counting predicates only
  •  Key distinctions
    • HB-5341 & HB-5368 expressly impose new legal obligations based solely on pre-enactment convictions, leaving little room for judicial narrowing.
    • HB-5253 operates prospectively, even though it considers prior convictions to determine whether the threshold is met.
  •  Structural and Policy Takeaway
    • HB-5341
      • Broadest registry, lowest threshold, explicit retroactivity, and public exposure.
    • HB-5368
      • Moderated scope (repeat offenders) but identical retroactive and public-registry structure.
    • HB-5253
      • Fundamentally different model: prospective, confidential, inquiry-based, and limited to chronic offenders.
Bottom Line The retroactivity provision is one of the clearest fault lines between these bills. HB-5341 and HB-5368 deliberately reach backward; HB-5253 deliberately does not.
2026 Regular Session HB5341 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Philip Kaso, Executive Director, WVRSOL on February 9, 2026 14:54
WVRSOL opposes HB-5341 because it creates a publicly accessible domestic violence registry despite overwhelming evidence that registries do not reduce recidivism, improve safety, or prevent additional domestic violence. Moreover, decades of research show registries do not deter crime. HB-5341 explicitly applies retroactively, raising serious ex post facto concerns under Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution. WVRSOL supports vigorous enforcement of domestic violence laws but urges the Legislature to reject HB-5341 and avoid expanding registry-based punishment schemes that increase litigation risk without increasing public safety.   Below is the side-by-side legislative analysis of HB-5341, HB-5368, and HB-5253.
  • Threshold for Placement on the Registry
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Trigger for registration Single qualifying conviction involving an intimate partner (with limited judicial discretion for non-intimate partners) At least two qualifying convictions Three or more domestic violence convictions
Scope of offenses Domestic battery, domestic assault, strangulation Same offenses, but repeat-offender based Domestic violence as defined in §48-27-202
Judicial discretion Yes (written findings required for some cases) Minimal None once the threshold is met
  •  Nature and Purpose of the Registry
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Legislative framing Public safety via community awareness Public safety focused on repeat offenders Personal safety and informed decision-making
Regulatory vs. punitive language Declared “regulatory, not penal.” Same Informational and confidential
Access model Public, Internet-accessible registry Public, Internet-accessible registry Confidential, inquiry-based verification
  •  Information Collected from Registrants
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Personal identifiers Extensive (SSN, photo, fingerprints, vehicles, UAVs, internet identifiers) Essentially identical to HB-5341 Minimal (name, DOB, offense type)
Employment/education data Required Required Not collected
Victim identity Non-identifying only Non-identifying only Explicitly excluded
  •  Public Disclosure and Community Notification
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Internet publication Yes Yes No
Community notification Prosecutor-led programs authorized Same None
FOIA treatment Registry exempt but affirmatively disclosed Same The entire registry is confidential and FOIA-exempt
  •  Duration of Registration
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Registration period 10 years from release or supervision 10 years No fixed “registration term.”
Removal mechanism Conviction overturned One of two qualifying convictions was overturned The registry reflects conviction history only
  •  Enforcement and Penalties
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Failure to comply New crimes (misdemeanor → felony escalation) Same No independent registry offense
Probation/parole consequences Mandatory revocation Mandatory revocation Not applicable
  •  Retroactive vs. Prospective Application (NEW)
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Express retroactivity clause Yes Yes No
Statutory language “Applies both retroactively and prospectively.” Same language No retroactivity language
Practical effect Past convictions alone trigger registration Past convictions alone trigger registration Registry placement only after a post-enactment conviction
Use of prior convictions Full trigger Full trigger Counting predicates only
  •  Key distinctions
    • HB-5341 & HB-5368 expressly impose new legal obligations based solely on pre-enactment convictions, leaving little room for judicial narrowing.
    • HB-5253 operates prospectively, even though it considers prior convictions to determine whether the threshold is met.
  •  Structural and Policy Takeaway
    • HB-5341
      • Broadest registry, lowest threshold, explicit retroactivity, and public exposure.
    • HB-5368
      • Moderated scope (repeat offenders) but identical retroactive and public-registry structure.
    • HB-5253
      • Fundamentally different model: prospective, confidential, inquiry-based, and limited to chronic offenders.
Bottom Line The retroactivity provision is one of the clearest fault lines between these bills. HB-5341 and HB-5368 deliberately reach backward; HB-5253 deliberately does not.
2026 Regular Session HB5253 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Philip Kaso, Executive Director, WVRSOL on February 9, 2026 14:54
WVRSOL opposes HB-5253 because domestic violence registries have proven ineffective and may place victims at greater risk. National experts warn that offender registries are not a tool for primary prevention and can discourage reporting while escalating retaliation. Although labeled “confidential,” the registry created by HB-5253 is accessible to the public upon request and is likely to expand over time. This “registry creep” mirrors the failed sex offense registry model, which decades of research show does not reduce recidivism or improve public safety. HB-5253 also raises serious constitutional concerns, including potential ex post facto violations under Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution. WVRSOL supports evidence-based policies that protect survivors and reduce domestic violence. HB-5253 does neither, and we respectfully urge its rejection.   Below is the side-by-side legislative analysis of HB-5341, HB-5368, and HB-5253.
  • Threshold for Placement on the Registry
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Trigger for registration Single qualifying conviction involving an intimate partner (with limited judicial discretion for non-intimate partners) At least two qualifying convictions Three or more domestic violence convictions
Scope of offenses Domestic battery, domestic assault, strangulation Same offenses, but repeat-offender based Domestic violence as defined in §48-27-202
Judicial discretion Yes (written findings required for some cases) Minimal None once the threshold is met
  •  Nature and Purpose of the Registry
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Legislative framing Public safety via community awareness Public safety focused on repeat offenders Personal safety and informed decision-making
Regulatory vs. punitive language Declared “regulatory, not penal.” Same Informational and confidential
Access model Public, Internet-accessible registry Public, Internet-accessible registry Confidential, inquiry-based verification
  •  Information Collected from Registrants
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Personal identifiers Extensive (SSN, photo, fingerprints, vehicles, UAVs, internet identifiers) Essentially identical to HB-5341 Minimal (name, DOB, offense type)
Employment/education data Required Required Not collected
Victim identity Non-identifying only Non-identifying only Explicitly excluded
  •  Public Disclosure and Community Notification
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Internet publication Yes Yes No
Community notification Prosecutor-led programs authorized Same None
FOIA treatment Registry exempt but affirmatively disclosed Same The entire registry is confidential and FOIA-exempt
  •  Duration of Registration
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Registration period 10 years from release or supervision 10 years No fixed “registration term.”
Removal mechanism Conviction overturned One of two qualifying convictions was overturned The registry reflects conviction history only
  •  Enforcement and Penalties
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Failure to comply New crimes (misdemeanor → felony escalation) Same No independent registry offense
Probation/parole consequences Mandatory revocation Mandatory revocation Not applicable
  •  Retroactive vs. Prospective Application (NEW)
Issue HB-5341 HB-5368 HB-5253
Express retroactivity clause Yes Yes No
Statutory language “Applies both retroactively and prospectively.” Same language No retroactivity language
Practical effect Past convictions alone trigger registration Past convictions alone trigger registration Registry placement only after a post-enactment conviction
Use of prior convictions Full trigger Full trigger Counting predicates only
  •  Key distinctions
    • HB-5341 & HB-5368 expressly impose new legal obligations based solely on pre-enactment convictions, leaving little room for judicial narrowing.
    • HB-5253 operates prospectively, even though it considers prior convictions to determine whether the threshold is met.
  •  Structural and Policy Takeaway
    • HB-5341
      • Broadest registry, lowest threshold, explicit retroactivity, and public exposure.
    • HB-5368
      • Moderated scope (repeat offenders) but identical retroactive and public-registry structure.
    • HB-5253
      • Fundamentally different model: prospective, confidential, inquiry-based, and limited to chronic offenders.
Bottom Line The retroactivity provision is one of the clearest fault lines between these bills. HB-5341 and HB-5368 deliberately reach backward; HB-5253 deliberately does not.
2026 Regular Session HB4369 (Finance)
Comment by: Deborah Wilson on February 9, 2026 14:18
This is a very important bill and I thank Delegates Smith and Marple for introducing it. Similar bills have been passed in nearby states and it's time for West Virginia to do the same. Please pass this bill out of the Finance Committee quickly.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Christa Shafer on February 9, 2026 12:58
This bill must be rejected as it limits voting for citizens that work away from their polling places, such as military, truck drivers, travel nurses along with disabled individuals especially in rural areas.
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: John Leon on February 9, 2026 12:10
I support this legislation to legalize edible cannabis sales to the general public in WV. This can help patients deal with pain, insomnia, and stress without addictive opioids.
2026 Regular Session HB5160 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Bradley D Basil on February 9, 2026 11:19
Please pass this Bill, relating to House Bill 5160 that will put an end to the accelerated assault on our natural resources, as well as WV animal and human life in this area of the Allegheny Mountain Range in Randolph County. The cloud covered days were already known to be more than the blue sky days of sunshine in our area of the Appalachian "temporate rain forest", but the last 5-6 years there have been hundreds of aircraft spreading turbulent plumes of barium, sulfur, silver iodide and who knows that else, to block the sun under a research program called Solar Radiation Modification (aka Management). A retired U.S. Forest Service employee recently told me that the Hemlock forests are now impacted in the Greenbrier State Forest, but he had no clue why, and I informed him that it certainly is NOT global warming, but this artificial testing of chemicals, and yet Local Weather Stations, our local division of U.S. Forest Service, and Dept. of Natural Resource will not report truth to the WVEPA, nor does the WVEPA do their job to safeguard our state. Please help and join Tennessee and Florida in banning this program that is destroying our environment.  Thank you
2026 Regular Session HB4515 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Daniel Pancake on February 9, 2026 10:50
Please submit this bill on the floor so it can be voted on. This bill is vital inorder to rescue WV church properties from a so called religious organization holding congregations hostage by using an antiquated trust clause dated back to the mid 1700s, which has no meaning today. The congregations built the church and maintained the properties since their beginning. The conference has never supplied any financial support. There is not any mention of a trust or a lien in any of our deeds. This is a WV property issue, not a ecumenical issue. Thanks  
2026 Regular Session HB5345 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Kristy Ritz on February 9, 2026 09:31
House Bill 5345 is the most important bill right now that will help child care survive.  If enrollment-based payments go away then nothing else matters.  Enrollment-based payments are critical to the stability and sustainability of child care programs. Unlike attendance-based payments, which fluctuate daily depending on whether a child is present, enrollment-based payments provide consistent, predictable funding for providers. Child care programs must maintain staff, meet licensing standards, and operate their facilities regardless of daily attendance. When payments are tied only to attendance, providers face financial instability due to factors outside of their control, such as child illness, transportation challenges, or family emergencies. Enrollment-based payments recognize that programs hold a space for a child and must staff accordingly, ensuring continuity of care and financial viability.  Child care is infrastructure. Just as roads and utilities support economic activity, stable child care funding supports workforce participation and business growth. Enrollment-based payments strengthen the child care sector, protect access for families, and promote broader economic stability.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Vanessa Reaves on February 9, 2026 09:25
What is the point of this bill aside from put more restrictions on West Virginians voting rights? What are the statistics showing that this creates any type of problem in the state? Can you focus on legislation that will help the state?
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Sam Bynum on February 9, 2026 09:24
We very much support legalizing medical cannabis edibles in 2026.  This is the safest and accessible medical cannabis product patients in WV can use.  It's apparent that 80% of WV residents approve of legal medical cannabis edibles and 38 of 40 states have legalized medical cannabis edibles.  Please support this crucial component of a comprehensive medical cannabis program.
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Thomas Schmidt on February 9, 2026 09:21
As a West Virginian and a homeschool parent, I am opposed to House Bill 5053. This bill could harm children and restrict parents from acting in the best interest of their children. If a child were being bullied in the public school and everything their parent(s) and school officials tried to do wasn't working, the child may need to be homeschooled to prevent further emotional and/or physical harm to them. It would be expected that a child suffering in this situation would have missed some school and could be in the pre-petition process while the parents and school officials attempted stop the bullying. However, HB 5053 would prevent the parent doing the one thing that might be necessary to protect the child, withdraw them from the school. The same is true for a student who has a prolonged/reoccurring illness. Before this illness was diagnosed as a chronic illness, the student could every easily be forced into the pre-petition process and therefor prevented from being homeschooled under House Bill 5053. Even though this might be the very thing the child needs. Finally, House Bill 5053 is completely unnecessary as the school superintendent is already able to petition the county circuit court to prevent a person from homeschooling  under West Virginia Code §18-8-1(c)(2). For these reasons, I am opposed to House Bill 5053 and I urge the West Virginia House to withdraw the bill. Respectfully, Thomas Schmidt District 16
2026 Regular Session HB5341 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Daniel F on February 9, 2026 09:13
Well since we are in love with registered criminals in this state….how come we don’t have a murder registry? DUI registry? Drug Dealer registry? Felony theft registry?
2026 Regular Session HB5319 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michele F on February 9, 2026 09:02
So where do they go? Any solutions? Maybe the rich delegate from the 78th will invite them into his house since he is a man of God?
2026 Regular Session HB5176 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Philip Kaso, Executive Director, WVRSOL on February 9, 2026 06:04
West Virginia House of Delegates House Judiciary Sub-Committee on Courts Written Testimony on HB-5176 Submitted by: Philip Kaso Executive Director West Virginians for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (WVRSOL) Position ☑ Oppose   ☐ Support   ☐ Support with Amendments What HB-5176 Does
  • Creates a public, searchable animal abuse database maintained by the WV State Police
  • Requires automatic inclusion upon conviction or plea
  • Imposes a $125 annual fee, enforceable via judgment lien
  • Directs collected fees to the WV State Police Criminal Justice Information Services Fund
 Why WVRSOL Opposes HB-5176
  1. No Public Safety Benefit
  • Registries do not deter crime; decades of empirical research confirm this
  • Animals cannot access registry information
  • Public access serves no preventive function
  1. Public Shaming as Policy
  • The registry’s primary effect is reputational punishment after sentence completion
  • Increases the risk of harassment and vigilantism
  • Mirrors failed sex-offense registry models
  1. Revenue Generation + Litigation Risk
  • Annual fees and lien enforcement replicate structures already under federal constitutional challenge
  • Expands state exposure to §1983 civil-rights litigation
  1. Constitutional Concerns
  • Potential ex post facto violations if applied retroactively
  • Ongoing public burdens constitute punitive effects under established case law
  • Violates Article III, Section 4 of the WV Constitution
WVRSOL Recommendation
  • Reject HB-5176 as drafted
  • If considered further, remove the public registry and fee provisions
Focus resources on enforcement, treatment, and prevention programs that actually reduce animal abuse.
2026 Regular Session HB5016 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Philip Kaso, Executive Director, WVRSOL on February 9, 2026 05:59
West Virginians for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (WVRSOL) supports HB 5016 because it represents a critical shift toward evidence-based prevention as a core public safety strategy. HB 5016 requires the development and implementation of a statewide prevention plan that focuses on services for at-risk children and their families. These services emphasize trauma-informed education, support, and programs that meet empirical, evidence-based criteria. Research consistently demonstrates that prevention and early intervention reduce abuse more effectively than reactive, punitive approaches implemented after harm has already occurred. For too long, public policy has focused on expanding registry-based systems that are costly, constitutionally vulnerable, and ineffective at preventing first-time offenses. HB 5016 instead directs attention and resources to strategies that work—supporting children, strengthening families, and addressing risk factors before abuse occurs. By grounding prevention efforts in empirical evidence rather than fear-based policymaking, HB 5016 promotes a smarter use of taxpayer dollars and better long-term public safety outcomes. It aligns with WVRSOL’s mission to reduce abuse, help families, and improve community safety through rational, data-driven policy. For these reasons, WVRSOL respectfully urges lawmakers to support HB 5016 and vote YES.
2026 Regular Session HB4073 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Nicole on February 9, 2026 05:01
We deserve this basic human right. Denying public school right, because of vaccine status,  should be illegal. It is definitely discrimination,  & unfair. With all the other states having them, pretty much. The ones that dont have gotten,  the president & legal action involved.   Som states are doing away with mandates all together,  & we cant even get religious.
2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Administration)
Comment by: Annette Yurkovich Brichford on February 9, 2026 00:55
Honoring free speech is a noble goal, but why create a state holiday tied to the birthday of a person who had no ties to West Virginia? February 8 of each year is already established as National Free Speech Day; let's make a state holiday to coincide with that recognition. If, as the bill states, you want to have an entire week devoted to celebrating free speech, center it around February 8. Another alternative might be December 15, the National Bill of Rights Day, and the week surrounding it, so we can celebrate all the freedoms given to us in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. We also already have Constitution Day, September 17, for a weeklong celebration to surround it. Charlie Kirk's murder was tragic and uncalled for. But let's not find a backdoor way to honor an individual who has unquestionably been a divisive part of the culture wars by cloaking this bill as a celebration of free speech.  Celebrate free speech as free speech, not tied to any individual, if that is the bill's true intention.
2026 Regular Session HB4147 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shyanne Workman on February 8, 2026 23:38
I agree with this bill because tobacco use is harmful to minors health. Making underage possession unlawful could discourage teenagers from using tobacco and actually help protect their long-term life.
2026 Regular Session HB4014 (Finance)
Comment by: Jocelyn Kohut on February 8, 2026 22:13
This House Bill 4014 would greatly benefit many of those I am tasked with serving. I currently work at a community mental health agency where many of my clients face unemployment. The possibility of submitting micro-credentials would have a positive impact on my clients ability to find employment outside of traditional education systems, which many do not qualify for. I also believe the tax credits for apprenticeships will aid some clients with daily living expenses where they currently struggle.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Melisa Kinser on February 8, 2026 21:34
I don’t think no parent should have to go through this. They deserve justice for Baylee. It’s not fair that she gets to be free because she chose to drink and drive and she needs consequences.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Destiny on February 8, 2026 21:31
Prayers for Baylee’s family and friends. JUSTICE FOR BAYLEE
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jenna on February 8, 2026 21:23
The sentencing needs to be longer.
2026 Regular Session HB5153 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 21:09
I strongly support this bill. West Virginia has an epidemic of obesity, which brings with it many other negative health outcomes. GLP-1s have shown to help combat this. West Virginians should have access to these pills if determined medically appropriate by their doctor.
2026 Regular Session HB5174 (Agriculture, Commerce, and Tourism)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 21:03
What a joke. So much for the supermajority's supposed focus on bringing jobs to the state.
2026 Regular Session HB5186 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:59
I strongly support this legislation. SLAPPs are a cancer on public discourse, allowing the well heeled to silence the larger public due to the risk of financial ruin. This practice should be banned.
2026 Regular Session HB5191 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:58
I strong oppose this bill. Rumble strips are expensive to install and WVDOH is already significant underfunded. The use of rumble strips should be determined by crash history data and engineering practice, not a blanket mandate.
2026 Regular Session HB5194 (Education)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:56
I oppose this bill. This is unnecessary meddling by the legislature in an issue that should be determined by experts in the field.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Nancy Paugh on February 8, 2026 20:54
I am writing in hopes of getting Baylea’s bill passed.  Baylea was murdered by a drunk driver.  A driver that made a choice to drink and take another persons life.  The family, friends and community that has lost her will never get her back.
2026 Regular Session HB5224 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:53
I oppose this bill. It unnecessarily complicates the state tax code. If the intent is to provide a larger financial incentive for poll workers, just pay them money upfront like any other job.
2026 Regular Session HB5249 (Education)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:51
I support this bill. West Virginia taxpayer dollars should stay in West Virginia.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:49
I support this bill. West Virginia is an outlier in not providing these protections. This bill makes the state more attractive to businesses that expect these sorts of protections for their employees.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Samuel Morris on February 8, 2026 20:48
Baylea’s law should be passed to more righteously punish the evil of those who are willing to selfishly and carelessly endanger other peoples’ lives, possibly resulting in death. It actually happens as in the case of Baylea Craig. This should be dealt with similarly to murder, and may God grant that a stricter sentence and the publishing of that sentence to the public will cause some to rethink drinking and driving.
2026 Regular Session HB5269 (Finance)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:46
I strongly support this bill. It helps reduce West Virginia's brain drain problem by encouraging college graduates to stay in West Virginia and build families and careers here.
2026 Regular Session HB4062 (Educational Choice)
Comment by: Kasey Reynolds on February 8, 2026 20:08
Thank you, Kathie, for always fighting for homeschool kids to have the same opportunities as public school children in our state! While all of mine are still under age to be governed in sports, I hope this bill passes and goes into effect prior to it becoming an issue for us! This is very appreciated and needed in the homeschool sports community!
2026 Regular Session HB4983 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Ron Allen on February 8, 2026 18:33
The existing regulations provide the public with minimal notice, few opportunities for feedback, and limited details about the companies' proposals. This severely hampers the public's ability to participate in the decision-making process. To improve transparency, an amendment is essential to guarantee that the public obtains comprehensive information about proposed data centers. West Virginians deserve access to key facts about these proposals, enabling them to express their concerns and protect their communities from possible negative impacts. This should include complete disclosure of information on environmental and community effects, such as projected air emissions, water usage and discharge, noise levels, traffic impacts, operating schedules, and demands on emergency services.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Terry Lamb on February 8, 2026 18:01
Please pass this bill
2026 Regular Session HB5007 (Finance)
Comment by: Leigh Koonce on February 8, 2026 16:48
Dear Delegates, A quick note to say I am supportive of HB 5007 introduced by Joe Funkhouser.  The tax credit will help many West Virginia families who maintain gym memberships for teen or young adult children who play sports as well as those approaching seniorhood who want to remain active. I hope the funding lost to the credit, however, isn't replaced by eliminating funding for other programs.   Regards, Leigh Koonce HD-97
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Barb Howe on February 8, 2026 16:00
I am writing to oppose HB 4600, which will make it harder for people to vote absentee and require ballots to be received by 8 pm on Election Day instead of being postmarked on Election Day. First, 8 p.m. on Election Day is a strange time. Your website is not working to allow me to download the full text of the bill but received where by 8 pm? Mail service does not usually run that late in the day. Will you be asking mail carriers to do extra work? Also, no one who mails a ballot can guarantee when it will be received. That is out of the voter's hands. If it has to be postmarked by Election Day, you can take it to the post office to be hand postmarked at the last minute if needed. Just last week, with the bad weather here in Morgantown, my mail has not been delivered since Thursday. I know there is mail coming, and I have a card in my mailbox with the flag up that I put out Friday morning. The card is still there, and the flag is still up today - Sunday afternoon. Since I can't drive in bad weather, this is my only way to have outgoing mail. That could be happening with a ballot, as the clerks at the post office and the mail carriers have all told me they don't have enough people or enough working vehicles to deliver the mail in a timely manner -- and I do not live on an isolated rural road. Since people can request an absentee ballot until 6 days before the election, your billl would make it almost impossible for someone to receive that ballot, complete it, and guarantee it was received somewhere by 8 pm on Election Day. I have been a poll worker since 2012. Voter fraud is not an issue in Monongalia County.  Where is your proof, in West Virginia, that your proposed change will do anything to address any specific kind of fraud? and what is that kind of fraud? What is the point of making it harder to vote? Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Chloe carroll on February 8, 2026 14:08
Justice for Baylea!!!
2026 Regular Session HB4983 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Vicki Conner on February 8, 2026 13:39
Re HB4983 I am asking all members to require transparency related to data centers being considered for communities in WV. From its beginning, WV has been raped by big companies, from taking our timber to taking our coal and leaving communities devastated when they leave. Data centers are going to potentially disrupt our power, our water (in places where we are fortunate to have clean water), our vistas, our general environment and communities deserve a right to be know about them and to be able to lobby against them. These data centers are going to go the way of the room-sized main frames of a couple of decades ago, and then the communities will be stuck, just like they're stuck w/ coal mine runoff, polluted air, etc.
2026 Regular Session HB4983 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Susan Klingensmith on February 8, 2026 13:22
I am writing to ask that you support an amendment to HB 4983 that improves transparency around water use. Water is life, and the unfortunate truth is that thousands of West Virginians do not have access to safe, clean drinking water. Data centers use significant amounts of water. Please support amendments that include water-use disclosure and planning safeguards.  
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: C U on February 8, 2026 13:20
Enough of the population of WV wants edibles legalized in 2026, that it justifies support.  This is the safest and easiest medical cannabis product patients in WV can use.  80% of WV residents approve of legal medical cannabis edibles and 38 of 40 states have legalized medical cannabis edibles.  Please support the bill and the people.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Olga Gioulis on February 8, 2026 13:03
Please vote no on 4600. This bill makes it more difficult for those who depend on USPS to mail ballots, especially since the change/confusion over postmark versus arrival. Seniors and military may be unaware of USPS changes and depend on mailing their ballot Thank You Olga Gioulis Sutton
2026 Regular Session HB5260 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jennifer N on February 8, 2026 12:58
Please legalize medical cannabis edibles in 2026.  This is the safest and easiest medical cannabis product patients in WV can use.  80% of WV residents approve of legal medical cannabis edibles and 38 of 40 states have legalized medical cannabis edibles.  While I'm not a regular user of cannabis, as a cancer survivor, I found edible cannabis extremely beneficial during my treatment to combat the side-effects of radiation and support my over-all well-being.  Please support this crucial component of a comprehensive medical cannabis program.
2026 Regular Session HB4983 (Energy and Public Works)
Comment by: Rebecca Phipps on February 8, 2026 10:11
Del. Clark, the people who sent you to Charleston should be allowed to speak. This is still a democracy. please consider. “Data centers” are the same as “coal,” resources leave and nothing for the people.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Craig Long on February 8, 2026 08:17
As an EMS worker and dispatcher for 32 years, I have seen the destruction and devastation caused to families firsthand. The current sentences are no more than a slap on the wrist for causing lives to be lost.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Annette Yurkovich Brichford on February 8, 2026 02:54
I wholeheartedly support this bill as a cisgender heterosexual West Virginian. The West Virginia Human Rights Act should be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Discrimination against anyone should have no place in our state; this bill is long overdue.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Vickie Hanson on February 8, 2026 02:18
I vote for House Bill 4712
2026 Regular Session HB5053 (Education)
Comment by: Anita R Gunnoe on February 8, 2026 02:15
Please stop targeting WV Citizens who wish to prevent their children from the indoctrination of public schools, rampant abuse of children by school staff, and the severe educational deficits.  The constant bombardment of the rights of parents has become a sickening governmental abuse.  Please discontinue the attacks on good people wanting to give the best to their children and start targeting the real issues such as CPS, crooked police, illegal immigrants, rogue protestors, etc.  There are innumerable issues in this state that need addressed, please address those issues.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ann Dorsey on February 8, 2026 01:02
I urge you to oppose HB 4600, a bill that unfairly penalizes eligible voters who rely on the U.S. Postal Service to return their ballots. By requiring absentee ballots to be received (rather than postmarked) by 8 PM on Election Day, this bill disenfranchises military personnel, seniors, people with disabilities, and West Virginians working or studying out of state. The bill also reduces the amount of time voters have to request an absentee ballot by one week and disregards West Virginia's strong election safeguards.  Results are never final on Election Day. Eliminating the current rule that allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received before the canvass begins will rush election officials, discard valid votes, and weaken trust in the process. Please act to protect the democratic process by opposing HB 4600. Thank you
2026 Regular Session HB4446 (Education)
Comment by: Douglas Miracle on February 8, 2026 00:34
Does this affect the programs already in existence, like the one in Wood County X755B
2026 Regular Session HB4063 (Educational Choice)
Comment by: Christianne Connelly on February 8, 2026 00:04
West Virginia has one of the lowest educational attainment rates in the country with its current school programming and set up (89.3% high school graduate or higher, 24.1% bachelor's degree or higher). Being from a rural area, many of our state schools and teachers are under-resourced and underfunded. Diverting tax dollars to help families exit public schools will likely increase this deficit for less educational attainment. Diverting schools to private programs, charter schools, virtual schools etc. will make it more difficult for children requiring special education services per IDEA. Currently, with pure virtual programs, many children/adolescents do not log in to complete schoolwork, which then leads to charges for truancy and lead to more tax dollars spent to provide mental health, court, and probation services for that individual. Disbanding our public schools not only impedes on our constitutional rights, but it will also have long-term consequences, including a reduced workforce, more disparities between the haves and the have-nots, and increased health and mental health concerns due to a lack of standardized structure, funding, and organization. Please to not adopt this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4413 (Public Health)
Comment by: Christianne Connelly on February 7, 2026 23:44
Eliminating syringe programs would be disastrous in WV.  Safe Syringe disposal programs and historically exchange programs have reduced the spreading of infectious diseases, which have been elevated in WV with the opioid epidemic. Given the nature of IV substance use, this indicates a level of severity for physical dependence of substances and so harm reduction strategies are utilized to individuals taper off substances slowly given changes in tolerance. As a medical provider and community member concerned regarding the spread of infectious diseases, my hope is that this bill is not signed into law, particularly given cuts to Medicaid, which impacts half of West Virginians and will lead to reduced access to adequate medical care if/when diseases become contracted.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ann Knott on February 7, 2026 22:34
Stop this attack on democracy, reject conspiracy-based bills that will make it harder for West Virginians to vote, and oppose HB 4600.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lacey on February 7, 2026 22:16
Pass it!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Janet Epling on February 7, 2026 21:41
Please pass this law so that people will think twice before drinking and driving.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Kelli Stuckey on February 7, 2026 21:24
Please include this very important addition to represent all of friends, family and neighbors. We all deserve these basic protections by law. Please support.
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Diane Difante on February 7, 2026 21:03
Please vote no on HB4600. If passed it will disenfranchise voters who have to be away from their voting districts on election day and those who depend on USPS to return their ballots. We all know how unreliable USPS is, so please oppose this bill and leave the deadlines as they are to give a little leeway to returning ballots by mail.
2026 Regular Session HB4067 (Human Services)
Comment by: Destiny on February 7, 2026 21:01
I am a single mother of two children, ages 7 and 3. My 7-year-old was diagnosed level 3, non-verbal autism at the age of 2. The father of my children provides no financial support. I have worked in childcare for 5 years and completed several trainings, certifications, and 3 of the 4 semesters of ACDS (Apprenticeship for Child Development Specialist). Having a son that was unable to communicate with me about the care he received is what drove me to work in childcare. While that was my initial reason for starting, I found a passion in educating young minds. However, when the cost of childcare takes such a large percentage of my pay- it makes me consider career changes for better financial opportunities. Childcare facilities have a large turnover rate in staffing- either from burnout or higher paying jobs. Our facility, like many others, has a staff shortage. If childcare centers around the state close - where will the working class send their children? This bill is vital to keep and bring in childcare teachers to ensure that our economy continues moving as it should.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Aryka soden on February 7, 2026 20:36
When a person chooses to drive drunk, they knowingly put every life on the road at risk—and when that decision ends in someone’s death, the law should reflect the full weight of that harm. Upping the charges for drunk drivers who kill while wrecking would affirm that these deaths are not “accidents,” but preventable tragedies caused by reckless choices. Stronger charges create real accountability, offer a measure of justice to grieving families, and send a clear message that society will not minimize the loss of life caused by impaired driving. More serious consequences also serve as a powerful deterrent, helping to prevent future deaths by making it unmistakable that driving under the influence carries severe, life-altering legal consequences. Lives lost to drunk driving deserve laws that recognize their value and protect others from the same fate.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: dee bradley on February 7, 2026 20:22
i want stricter laws n them actually enforced such as Bayleas law. WV is known for loving and supporting families and Baylea is everyone’s Daughter here in WV. I support this as a step forward. Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Josh Wells on February 7, 2026 19:39
I am for house bill 4712.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: April Wells on February 7, 2026 19:38
I am for

House Bill 4712

  we definitely need more strict penalties for deaths and injuries caused by drunk and impaired drivers.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amy Stump on February 7, 2026 19:28
The punishment needs to more. Ask yourself this  is 3-15 years really enough?What if it was your child who died at the hands of a drunk driver? Would 3 to 15 years be enough? They only spend maybe half of that.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Vicki spurlock on February 7, 2026 18:10
Please protect West Virginia
2026 Regular Session HB4600 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Louis Mendetta on February 7, 2026 16:04
I am against this bill. I am requesting that our representatives vote against this bill because it takes more of our rights away as voters
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brittany Meddings on February 7, 2026 15:53
I would like to see this bill passed so that anyone who makes the decision to get behind the wheel and drive, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, will face harsher fine or punishment (ie. Revocation of license) and jail time, more than just the minimum.

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

Baylea and her family deserve justice. And so do the many other persons and families that have been affected by someone else's decision to drive while impaired, where it ends up causing bodily injury or fatality.