Public Comments

1. Establishment Clause: Prevents the government from establishing a religion, endorsing it, or becoming excessively involved in religious affairs.
2. Free Exercise Clause: Protects the right to hold any belief or no belief at all.
3. Key Court Standards: The Supreme Court often uses the "Lemon test" to determine if government action violates the Establishment Clause, requiring a secular purpose and that it neither advances nor inhibits religion.
4. Application: These rights apply to federal, state, and local governments, protecting against actions that would restrict religious freedom.

I support displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools because they are part of our nation’s historical and cultural foundation. Regardless of individual religious beliefs, the principles they promote; such as respecting others, valuing honesty, honoring parents, and prohibiting theft and violence which are timeless moral guidelines that contribute to a healthy society. Teaching students about the historical influence of these principles helps them better understand the roots of our legal system and civic values. Displaying them as part of our shared history is not about forcing religion, but about acknowledging the role these ideas have played in shaping ethical standards and Western law.

My Name is Sandra Moran, Mother of Justin Moran. I have some concerns about House Bill 4758. Extending prison times is not the answer, if any thing, it is only going to be a burden on the State, and the families of the Inmates. I know firsthand because my Son has served seventeen years in several facilities through the WVDOC. He was sentenced to Life with Mercy, and has been denied twice by the Parole board with no good explanation given for their denial. There are young men who are role model inmates being denied a chance in becoming productive members of society. This bill will only increase the elderly population within the prisons leading to very expensive but necessary medical support for the aging population. Also, these inmates will not be wanted in the work force once they are released back into society to old and or to sick to work in any community. This bill is an economic failure for the State, for the citizens of West Virginia. There are no positive benefits for anyone. This bill does not even support what the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was originally put into place for. If anything it will be going in reverse. Please oppose House Bill 4761 or brace for disaster. Respectfully, Sandra Moran

My Name is Sandra Moran, Mother of Justin Moran. I have some concerns about House Bill 137. Extending prison times is not the answer, if any thing, it is only going to be a burden on the State, and the families of the Inmates. I know firsthand because my Son has served seventeen years in several facilities through the WVDOC. He was sentenced to Life with Mercy, and has been denied twice by the Parole board with no good explanation given for their denial. There are young men who are role model inmates being denied a chance in becoming productive members of society. This bill will only increase the elderly population within the prisons leading to very expensive but necessary medical support for the aging population. Also, these inmates will not be wanted in the work force once they are released back into society to old and or to sick to work in any community. This bill is an economic failure for the State, for the citizens of West Virginia. There are no positive benefits for anyone. This bill does not even support what the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was originally put into place for. If anything it will be going in reverse. Please oppose House Bill 4761 or brace for disaster. Respectfully, Sandra Moran

1. Pass this bill please!

What exactly are we doing with this bill?

From what I am reading, the primary outcome appears to be: large corporations receive substantial tax credits, and citizens may receive a handful of jobs in return. Is that truly the intended balance?

Why are we granting massive tax credits to enormous data centers and corporations simply for being expensive? Large-scale infrastructure projects already come with significant capital backing. Why does a corporation investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars require additional public subsidy from a state that consistently emphasizes budget constraints?

I am particularly concerned about the provision allowing companies to offset taxes tied to employee withholding. If tax relief is being applied to income generated by employees’ labor, why does that benefit not go directly to the employees themselves? If the justification is job creation, shouldn’t working citizens see direct financial benefit rather than corporations reducing their own tax liability?

Additionally, the minimum qualification standard is structured as an “OR” requirement — meaning a corporation can qualify by investing $2.5 million without necessarily creating meaningful long-term employment. Why is there no stronger “AND” requirement that ensures both substantial investment and substantial job creation? Without that safeguard, it appears possible for large corporations to receive significant tax advantages with minimal obligation to the working class.

Many working-class citizens of West Virginia are already struggling with rising costs of living, housing, and healthcare. It is difficult to understand why the state’s priority seems to be expanding tax flexibility for major corporations rather than strengthening direct economic stability for the people whose labor sustains the state economy.

If the citizens who power West Virginia’s economy are not the primary priority, then what is?

1. Shifts Decision-Making from Statute to Administrative Rulemaking The proposed legislation removes detailed graduation standard language from statute and delegates authority to the State Board of Education to promulgate those requirements by rule. This significantly shifts responsibility for defining diploma criteria from the Legislature — where elected representatives debate and vote on policy — to an administrative body outside direct legislative approval. Current legislative discussion shows the Board would set not only common requirements but detailed pathway criteria by rule, including workforce and military pathways.  
2. Undefined Scope of Board Authority The bill text before the Legislature authorizes the Board to define graduation pathways — but the specifics of what the Board might include are not clearly constrained in statute. For example, there is no express limit on additional requirements the Board might adopt beyond core academic credits; this creates uncertainty for students, parents, and educators about what will ultimately be required.  
3. Potential for Inconsistent Local Implementation Because the requirements will be set through rulemaking, local school districts and county boards will have to interpret and operationalize those rules without the benefit of detailed statutory guidance. This could lead to inconsistent expectations across counties or unanticipated instructional burdens.
4. Transparency and Public Input Concerns Rulemaking can limit public awareness and input compared to statute: • Rule proposals are often technical and subject to shorter comment periods. • Rules may be amended or adopted without full legislative debate. This reduces opportunities for a broad public airing of proposed graduation standards before they take effect.
5. Context of Broader Education Policy Changes This bill is part of a broader legislative session that has seen multiple significant education policy changes — including proposals on school discipline, cell phone use, and curriculum pathways — which collectively affect students’ educational experience. Graduation requirements should be carefully considered by the Legislature with clear statutory language rather than delegated through rulemaking without sufficient guardrails.  

Please help out our State by legalizing this plant for recreational use. It has been proven to be safer than alcohol with almost endless possibilities from the tax benefits. The people of our great State deserve to be able to get a leg up instead of always being behind. You all have the power to make that change. Be that change. Thank you.