By Crystal Good
For the West Virginia Press Association
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Floor discussion is scheduled Monday in the West Virginia House of Delegates on House Bill 4069 – West Virginia Student Religious Liberties Act.
The bill is on Second Reading in the House
Debate in the House Education Committee on Feb. 4 resulted in two calls for division after failed amendments and ending with a final Republican majority vote to pass the bill.
The West Virginia Student Religious Liberties Act seeks to amend code from 1931 and is sponsored by Delegates Gary Howell, R-Mineral; David Kelly, R-Tyler; Terri Sypolt, R-Preston; Jeffery Pack, R-Raleigh: Martin Atkinson, R-Roane; Jordan Hill, R-Nicholas; Jim Butler, R-Mason; Brent Boggs, D-Braxton; Ruth Rowan, R-Hampshire; and Amy Summers, R-Taylor.
The Education Committee was briefed by committee counsel, who offered an explanation of the bill, which defines student and parent religious expression, religious expression in class assignments, students freedom to organize religious groups and activities and limited public forum and school district policy language.
Contention among the committee members surfaced from language about the public forum and district policy development mandate that would require school districts to provide a prescribed method for the selection of student speakers at school events and graduation ceremonies.
The bill’s language said speaking permissions are to be granted only to those students “in the highest two grade levels of the school” and who hold one of the following positions of honor: student council officers, class officers of the highest grade level in the school, captains of the football team, and other students of honor as the school district may designate.
Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, minority vice-chair, said the bill was “overly prescriptive and exceptionally confusing.” He questioned why football was the only sport mentioned throughout the bill.
Committee counsel said the bill was taken from Mississippi law.
Minority committee members questioned the need for the bill in West Virginia, asking if the bills purpose overreached the First Amendment.
Several minority committee members express their opinion that the bill was prompted by an incident in the lead sponsor’s district, Mineral County.
Delegate Howell, lead sponsor, was not present to speak to the bill, nor did Committee Counsel or Heater Hutchins, general counsel for the Department of Education, who spoke to the the bill in general, have knowledge of any incident in Mineral County.
Delegate Cody Thompson, D-Randolph, asked if a special needs student or a student that has overcome adversity but is not defined as a leader would be eligible to speak at school events or graduation by the bills language.
The Education Committee Counsel said a student who did not meet the definition of the law would not be eligible to speak.
After a 30-minute committee recession, Minority Chair Delegate Sean Hornbuckle, D-Cabell, offered an amendment seeking remedy for students who do not meet the bill’s leadership and grade definition but whom teachers and students may support as a graduation and event speaker.
Supporting Hornbuckle’s amendment, a committee member said, “It’s not the state’s job to decide who gets to speak at these events.”
Delegate Ed Evans, D-McDowell, concurred and added that many schools have gone away from a valedictorian system. Evans cautioned, “Drawing names is not the best way to select a speaker … this is prescriptive and wrong.”
The bill offers a “certain acts restricted” section that would not require any person to participate in prayer or in any other religious activity. The bill language states the legislative may not violate the constitutional rights of any person.
In response to questions from delegates about other forms of worship including Satan worshipers, Committee Counsel said, “Satan worshippers are equal under the law.”
It was noted that students do not have to agree with others religious practices but that they must be respectful of others rights.
After questioning from Delegate Hornbuckle, it was also noted the practice of snake handling would possibly be a safety code violation, not a religious freedom act infringement.
Committee Counsel reminded committee members that all students are protected by the first amendment and — that by the counsel’s reading of the bill — the purpose of the bill is to offer specific prescriptive language but does not question or challenge Constitutional first amendment rights.
