Public Comments

1. I just want to respond to Cindy M comment,.. she says our state is low ranking in healthcare & we have one of the highest mortality rate.. for infants? Would those deaths include after theyve received their vaccinations ? Healthy babies dont just die. Vaccine side effects that can contribute to infant deaths.. include APNEA , BRADYCARDIA,  MIs, BRAIN SWELLING,  & uncontrollable SEIZURES. & more.
2. The apnea can happen at night or right in front of your eyes, after their well visit.
3. The ingredients in the vaccines can upset the heart, causing children to have heart attacks or drop a babies heart to where its crucial to get intervention.. meaning CPR. A lot of cases.. this happens at home,  where they are not trained on CPR & unfortunately the EMS is too, late. Resulting in death.
4. Please let the parents decide whether or not they want to vaccinate.

1. Please take up this bill ! We shouldn't even have a law that refuses the right of students to attend school. About 700 families have a religious exemption. And the legislators are ignoring every single one of them & more. Some families want one but haven't gotten one because of what the legislators are doing .. & the board.

I have many concerns with House Bill 5053:

I have a Christian friend that is cousin to Baylea and the family is devastated.  Destiny  the drunk driver her mom gave her the alcohol at the bar and that wasn't the first time she bragged about drinking on Instagram and did not care. I think Destiny the drunk driver should get 30 years to life in prison for what she did she never so remorse people like that should never get out of jail.

 

1.  As a longtime homeschool advocate in communication with thousands of homeschoolers who have removed their child(ren) from the public school system, I can verify the vast majority have removed their children after either a bullying situation or a medical condition.  In the case of bullying it was deemed necessary to keep the child home immediately to protect the physical and emotional well being of the child thus leading to more days missed from school, but the child was protected from the attackers.  In the case of a medical condition, it is no secret more children are exhibiting chronic conditions than ever before.  In some cases the families have exhausted funds to continually seek a medical excuse.  Forcing a family to continue in their present state for any period of time is cruel.  There are no provisions in this law for keeping children safe in these situations. Also, we are writing law based on an assumption?  "The county often receives a homeschool notice..."  Where is the statistical proof of that beyond the assumption (heresay) of county personnel who find it difficult to maintain the homeschool records they are charged by the law to collect?  Ask counties such as Kanawha, who lost all their homeschool records a few years ago and my own county of Lewis who sent me a letter stating the records were lost and asked if I would re-submit.
2. There is a "concern"  that parents "may".... are we making law based on a statistically undocumented assumption??  This portion does not even make sense.  From the parents I have contact, their stories describe realizing their public school children who are in 3-5th grades cannot read.  Some parents have removed their children from public school for the express purpose of teaching the child to read and then returning to public school.  The actual statistics as posted on the WVDE website and various news articles state WV public school children are less than 50% proficient in the ability to read and basic math skills.  It is jaw dropping your efforts are turned toward homeschooling when thousands of children in the public school system are unable to read.
3. This bill targets one small group in the entire state - homeschoolers.  A parent can remove a child to apply for the Hope Scholarship, microschool, or learning pod without this unfair regulation applying to them.  Homeschoolers are those who do not take public funds for education.  This bill implies that those who take public funds (Hope Scholarship) can remove their child from public school even if the child has been truant for months.  Likewise if the parent enrolls the child in a microschool (paid teacher) or learning pod (unpaid volunteer), this proposed legislation would not apply and they could freely leave the public school without question.  Is this discrimination?
4. The last portion is a puzzle as there is zero indication of what the law is requiring..."a comprehensive study of public school families who choose to homeschool to identify systematic drivers for the decision".  Is this like an inquisition? An exit poll? A court order to explain a parent's decision?  What kind of questions will be asked in this comprehensive study?  Does your family attend church...Do you have a social lifestyle...Are you a conservative or liberal....This legislation is so open ended it could entail anything!  It IS clear it entails questioning parents about a decision made in the upbringing of their children, which is a God-given right.  I am shocked of the wording and intent of this bill.

HB 4073 provides a clear, reasonable, and respectful path for families with sincerely held religious beliefs to access a religious exemption from compulsory school immunizations. Children should not have their education interrupted or denied because their parents are exercising deeply held religious convictions. This bill ensures that families are not forced to choose between faith and their child’s ability to attend school.

Importantly, HB 4073 maintains existing public health safeguards. Medical exemptions remain in place, vaccination requirements are unchanged, and schools continue to receive proper documentation. The bill simply adds a transparent, standardized religious exemption process that respects parental rights while preserving order and clarity for schools.

West Virginia families are diverse, and our laws should reflect respect for conscience, religious liberty, and uninterrupted access to education. HB 4073 strikes that balance thoughtfully and responsibly.

I respectfully urge House Delegates to vote in favor of HB 4073. Thank you for your time and consideration.

• Add youth-safety protections
• Require background checks or abuse-prevention training
• Strengthen mandatory reporting requirements
• Clarify exclusions when the athletic official is the aggressor

• W. Va. Code §61-2-8 (sexual assault and abuse)
• W. Va. Code §61-2-14 (child abuse and neglect)
• W. Va. Code §49-2-803 (mandatory reporting of child abuse)

• Enhanced penalties apply automatically based on the injured party’s role as a “coach”
• Law enforcement may default to treating the coach as the victim
• A minor acting in lawful self-defense may be charged first and forced to assert self-defense later

• Reduced credibility compared to adult authority figures
• Power imbalances in reporting and investigation
• Fear of retaliation or disbelief

• Chilling minors from defending themselves
• Discouraging reporting of misconduct
• Reinforcing unsafe power asymmetries in youth sports

• Explicitly exempt lawful self-defense
• Clarify that enhanced penalties do not apply when the official is the aggressor
• Pair protections with mandatory reporting, training, or oversight requirements

• Classroom instruction
• Teacher recruitment or retention
• Academic remediation
• Curriculum development
• K-12 or post-secondary academic infrastructure

• Student enrollment
• Instructional costs
• Equity and adequacy
• Predictable and stable funding formulas

• Ticket sales
• Merchandise revenue
• Athletic competition results

• Reduce or consolidate Department of Education functions
• Shift administrative responsibilities without corresponding funding increases
• Alter curriculum standards and historical instruction requirements

• Broad access
• Academic opportunity
• Workforce readiness

• K-12 underfunding
• School closures
• Limited academic offerings
• Barriers to post-secondary readiness

• In 2022, the Governor of West Virginia issued an Executive Order directing the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (ABCA) to halt the purchase and sale of Russian-produced liquor, including Russian vodka, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• That action was executive, not statutory, and was implemented through state-controlled alcohol distribution, not codified into the West Virginia Code.
• HB 5240 amends §11-16-10 of the West Virginia Code, which governs nonintoxicating beer, by creating a temporary Class T import license allowing out-of-state beer to be imported for limited events such as festivals and test marketing.

1. Expanding alcohol import permissions in statute while existing executive restrictions on foreign alcohol products remain unresolved and uncodified.
2. Failing to clarify whether temporary import licenses are subject to:
   • existing executive orders,
   • federal sanctions regimes, or
   • state-level trade or procurement restrictions.
4. Leaving enforcement to administrative discretion without statutory guardrails, which raises equal-protection, uniform enforcement, and transparency concerns under Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (separation of powers).

• West Virginia operates a control state alcohol system, meaning clarity in alcohol import authority is essential.
• When executive bans exist outside statute, and the Legislature expands import authority without harmonization, it creates:
  • inconsistent enforcement,
  • legal uncertainty for license holders,
  • and public confusion about which products are permitted.
• If the Legislature intends to maintain foreign-product restrictions, that policy should be explicitly addressed in statute, not left to executive orders that may expire, be modified, or be selectively enforced.

• W. Va. Code §11-16-10: governs nonintoxicating beer but does not address foreign trade restrictions.
• W. Va. Constitution, Art. III §10: requires laws to be applied uniformly and not left to arbitrary enforcement.
• Administrative law principles require that agencies act pursuant to clear legislative authority, not unresolved executive directives.

1. Clearly state that temporary import licenses are subject to all existing executive orders and trade restrictions, or
2. Require the Legislature to formally codify, repeal, or sunset prior alcohol import bans, including those related to foreign conflicts, to ensure transparency and consistency.

• Verify compliance with existing election law;
• Require pre-election inspection of tabulation equipment;
• Increase transparency through public reporting of audit results.

1. Limited Scope of Audits The bill requires random audits of a percentage of machines in a minimum number of counties. While this is a step forward, it does not guarantee statewide verification. Partial audits may fail to detect isolated non-compliance.
2. Lack of Uniform Audit Standards HB 5236 does not clearly define:
   • How inspections must be conducted;
   • What technical standards determine compliance; or
   • What corrective actions are required if violations are found. Uniform statewide procedures are necessary to prevent inconsistent enforcement across counties.
4. Accountability and Enforcement Gaps While the bill prohibits the use of non-compliant equipment, it does not clearly specify:
   • Timelines for remediation;
   • Oversight consequences for repeat failures; or
   • Independent verification beyond the Secretary of State’s office.
6. Public Trust Context In the aftermath of documented nationwide attempts to challenge certified election results following the 2020 election—despite those efforts failing—election legislation must prioritize consistency, transparency, and enforceable safeguards to maintain public confidence. Incremental oversight improvements should not rely solely on discretionary or limited review mechanisms.

• Clear statewide audit standards;
• Broader or more comprehensive verification;
• Defined enforcement and remediation requirements.

• The First Amendment protects verbal criticism, raised voices, and offensive speech unless it constitutes true threats or narrowly defined “fighting words.”
• The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective enforcement based on identity, demeanor, or perceived social acceptability.

• Independent civilian oversight,
• Mandatory constitutional-rights training,
• Clear reporting and badge-identification requirements,
• Enforceable misconduct consequences,

• Documentation of civilian complaints,
• Protections against retaliatory enforcement,
• Uniform treatment of speech regardless of viewpoint,
• Compliance audits tied to receipt of public funds.

• Delegates voting-equipment security policies to county officials without mandating uniform statewide standards
• Does not require independent audits, public reporting of testing results, or third-party verification
• Relies primarily on submission of policies to the Secretary of State, rather than enforceable consistency across counties

• Establish uniform statewide standards
• Require independent audits and public transparency
• Strengthen, not dilute, centralized oversight

Good afternoon. My name is Noel and I am a resident of Berkeley County, West Virginia. I am here to express my strong support for House Bill 4947.

HB 4947 protects the fundamental right of West Virginians to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs without being forced to choose between faith, education, or employment. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of both the United States Constitution and the West Virginia Constitution, and this bill reinforces that principle in a fair and reasonable way.

Children’s education should never be hindered or interrupted because they are unable to receive a vaccine due to prior injuries, adverse reactions, or their parents’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Children should not be punished for circumstances beyond their control. HB 4947 ensures that families are not forced out of schools, childcare settings, or educational environments simply for exercising medical caution or religious conviction.

This bill strikes an appropriate balance by preserving public health protections while respecting individual conscience and parental rights. It provides clarity, consistency, and protection against discrimination, ensuring that West Virginia families and workers are treated with dignity and fairness.

I respectfully urge House Delegates to vote in favor of HB 4947 and protect religious liberty, parental rights, and uninterrupted access to education for all West Virginians. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

• Retirement benefits suspended, and
• Benefits recalculated only after meeting statutory re-employment thresholds.

• Re-employment after disability retirement,
• Suspension or recalculation of benefits, or
• Situations where a retiree may simultaneously receive retirement benefits while re-entering service under other advancing legislation.

• PERS,
• Teachers Retirement System, or
• Other law-enforcement retirement structures.

• Be offset if the retiree re-enters public employment,
• Be suspended during re-employment, or
• Be treated as an add-on rather than subject to recalculation.

• Length of service,
• Contribution history, and
• Defined eligibility conditions.

• Re-employment provisions,
• Contribution resumption, or
• Benefit suspension rules.

• Explicitly harmonize it with re-employment and retirement statutes, or
• Address survivor-benefit equity through comprehensive retirement-system reform rather than isolated amendments.

• In Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), the Court upheld a narrow buffer-zone restriction, emphasizing the need for precision.
• In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Court struck down a polling-place speech restriction because it lacked objective, workable standards and allowed arbitrary enforcement.

• “express advocacy”
• “ballot issue information”
• “soliciting”

• Article III, §7 – guarantees freedom of speech and press
• Article III, §16 – guarantees due process of law

• Fail to give fair notice
• Encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement

• Selective enforcement
• Viewpoint discrimination
• Unequal treatment of voters based on political belief, appearance, or issue advocacy

1. A compelling governmental interest
2. Narrow tailoring
3. Use of the least restrictive means available

• Maintain order at polling places
• Prevent intimidation or interference
• Address election misconduct

• U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
• U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
• West Virginia Constitution, Article III, §§7 and 16

• demonstrated parental capacity,
• actual harm or risk to the child,
• compliance with court-ordered improvement periods, and
• medically informed evaluations.

• preserve judicial discretion,
• explicitly protect lawful medical treatment and medical cannabis use,
• require a proven nexus between substance use and neglect or danger, and
• prevent financial incentives from influencing child welfare outcomes.

Requiring students to perform the ritual of flag folding, a practice deeply rooted in military tradition, raises significant concerns regarding the compelled speech doctrine. As established in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the state cannot force citizens to confess by word or act their faith in any orthodox tenet of nationalism.

• Amend §29B-1-1 or any FOIA enforcement provision
• Establish penalties for incomplete or obstructed responses
• Require agencies to certify the completeness of FOIA productions
• Mandate delivery of records in accessible, non-restricted formats
• Provide remedies when agencies supply broken links or inaccessible files

• Missing enforcement records, including WVDEP inspection reports and consent or compliance orders tied to permit exceedances
• Incomplete disclosures, where responsive documents were acknowledged but not produced
• Inaccessible records, including contract addenda and bid materials provided only through restricted or nonfunctional links
• Omission of environmental review documents, such as Environmental Assessments or Findings of No Significant Impact for projects receiving state and federal funds
• Lack of proactive public notice regarding repeated wastewater permit exceedances and untreated discharge events

• Administrative decision-making without public oversight
• Post-hoc disclosure rather than contemporaneous public access
• Increased barriers for citizens seeking records related to environmental, health, or fiscal impacts
• Erosion of public trust in state agencies

• Environmental compliance
• Public infrastructure
• Water quality
• Wastewater treatment
• State and federal funding

• Strengthened FOIA enforcement provisions
• Clear requirements for accessible record delivery
• Mandatory disclosure of environmental and compliance records
• Accountability mechanisms when agencies fail to comply with FOIA

• A child may be exempt from compulsory attendance if the requirements of W. Va. Code §18-8-1(c)(2) are met, including a Notice of Intent to provide home instruction that assures instruction in reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies, and an annual academic assessment.  
• Homeschool parents must submit evidence of a high school diploma or equivalent and assessment results as prescribed by statute, but they retain full responsibility for their child’s education within the statutory framework.  
• Vocational opportunities are accessible to homeschool students under W. Va. Code §18-5-15g, which requires that county boards permit homeschooled students to enroll in vocational education under the same conditions as public school students.  

• Departs from the statutory exemption process outlined in §18-8-1(c)(2).  
• Risks creating penal consequences for parents exercising their right to educate their children at home.
• Encourages a system that prioritizes surveillance over support — contrary to principles of family autonomy and limited government intrusion.

• Repeal or revision of ordinances
• Significant legal defense costs
• Exposure to attorney-fee awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act)

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – civil liability for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law
• Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection Clause, if enforcement is selective or discriminatory

• Content-neutral
• Narrowly tailored
• The least restrictive means available

• Disorderly conduct
• Harassment
• Trespass
• Traffic and pedestrian safety statutes

• Federal litigation
• Court-ordered damages
• Mandatory attorney-fee payments

• Low-income individuals
• People experiencing homelessness
• Veterans
• Individuals with disabilities