I oppose HB99 and HB102. Both bills increase mandatory minimums and penalties. That removes discretion from judges and replaces it with rigid sentencing. Judges are in the best position to weigh facts, intent, and risk. Mandatory minimums block that judgment, even when a different outcome would better serve public safety. Harsher penalties do not reduce crime. We have decades of data showing that sentence increases expand incarceration without changing behavior. These policies shift power to charging decisions, not the courtroom. They push people into pleas driven by fear of extreme sentences. Virginia does not need more mandatory minimums. We need sentencing that fits the person and the conduct. For these reasons, I urge opposition to HB99 and HB102.

My husband is currently incarcerated serving a four year sentence on a marijuana charge with the handgun. He is a model citizen and should be allowed to at least serve 50% of his time due to mandatory minimum on a marijuana charge with the weapon he is serving his full term and should be home with his family. He is a non-violent criminal and deserves to be able to serve his time honesty with at least parole or probation..

The last thing we need is the increase in any mandatory minimum. Longer punishment is not a deterrent and does not make us safer. Let's deal with the factors that create conditions ripe for manslaughter; harsher punishments are not associated with less crime. Warehousing people for longer does not serve any of the public - in fact it results in returning citizens who are MORE debilitated. Our country does NOT need to be one of the world leaders in incarceration like it is. Let's invest our dollars in prevention; not paying for people to stay in prison longer. We strongly oppose this law.

I oppose HB99 and HB102. Both bills increase mandatory minimums and penalties. That removes discretion from judges and replaces it with rigid sentencing. Judges are in the best position to weigh facts, intent, and risk. Mandatory minimums block that judgment, even when a different outcome would better serve public safety. Harsher penalties do not reduce crime. We have decades of data showing that sentence increases expand incarceration without changing behavior. These policies shift power to charging decisions, not the courtroom. They push people into pleas driven by fear of extreme sentences. Virginia does not need more mandatory minimums. We need sentencing that fits the person and the conduct. For these reasons, I urge opposition to HB99 and HB102.

I write in Support of Delegate Ballard's HB 102. Currently, Voluntary Manslaughter has the same penalty as much lesser crimes and is punishable only as a Class 5 Felony (10 year punishment). This means that in Virginia, a person can receive more jail time for stealing a check or credit card than killing someone. This Bill would bring the punishment more in line with the offense. I request that the House vote in favor of HB 102.

Unfortunately, this bill is overly broad & vague in what it regulates (terms like "alarm and reasonable emotional distress"). So it should have some words added to it, like requiring that the prohibited conduct BE AIMED AT OR DIRECTED AT the complainant. What does "reasonable" emotional distress mean? People can be alarmed or distressed by many things. If people take photos of a mayor while she is going about her daily life, that may annoy her and lead to her seeking a restraining order, but an appeals court found that such annoying behavior was protected by the First Amendment, in Cantrell v. Breaud. Even though the mayor thought that such behavior was harassing and served no legitimate purpose. Crazy people have obtained restraining orders against people on TV, like David Letterman, when they were offended or alarmed by what those people on TV said or did: https://www.independent.org/article/2005/12/29/abuse-of-temporary-restraining-orders-endangers-real-victims/. To ameliorate that problem, the bill should be amended to add a requirement that the person suffering alarm or emotional distress be the one against whom "the act or pattern of action" is DIRECTED. Law professors such as Eugene Volokh chronicle examples of such people and how they misuse such laws -- and examples of public figures using such laws in ways that courts later say violate the First Amendment: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/11/new-orleans-mayor-wasnt-entitled-to-restraining-order-against-woman-who-took-photos-of-her-in-a-public-place/ Volokh's UCLA legal clinic successfully challenged some such restraining or harassment orders on First Amendment grounds, even though those anti-harassment statutes didn't seem any vaguer than this one.

I vote no on this bill. If passed, this bill will not protect children. How will this bill be operationalized? Will police officers do a background check on each person at all parks in perpetuity? I hope we can start figuring out how to protect real children instead of creating yet more laws and filling our legislative books with laws that cannot exist with reality.

Please vote NO on HB250. Research / scholarship has proven that geographical and proximity restrictions do not protect children. These restrictions are arbitrary, difficult to enforce, and completely useless. Legislation should be based on facts, not fear.

This bill would add another Felony 6 to our burgeoning Virginia Code, but only for those committing their crimes on or after July 1, 2026?? How are these people to be identified and differentiated from those committing their crimes before that date? Will they have a Scarlet Letter emblazoned on their foreheads? Who measures the 100 foot distance restriction? What if children move into the space already occupied by the restricted person--is he automatically in violation? Do you understand the inhumanity of "shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited"? I think you can see that enforcement as well as compliance would be a nightmare with this bill. We have seen bills like this offered in the recent past--usually supported by the Republicans. Mercifully, these bills have all died due to opposition by the Democratic Party. Please. Save our legislators time and tax payers' money and Vote NO HB250.

This is a TERRIBLE bill, and I am deeply disappointed in Del Watts (as well as Sen. Diggs in SB 55) , who has so often done so many wonderful things for children. But this bill would provide an injustice to those other marginalized people, so-called sex offenders, who are also sometimes placed on the registry as children, too. 100 feet is far TOO CLOSE and easy to trip up unsuspecting people who may inadvertently stumble upon the many random parks and rec areas frequented by children. It would be the police who effectively determine what "loitering" means, and would further stigmatize those who , like me, were unjustly convicted of a crime we never contemplated to begin with. Children who might wish to play with their friends, but who are also on the registry would be barred from such venues as well. It is a solution in search of a problem, and deeply insulting to those of us , over 1 million now, placed on the registry, often for trifling matters that have nothing to do with harming children. We would be further stigmatized. I write on behalf of many who would not be writing here, but depending on my voice as well.

The Virginia Victim Assistance Network supports this bill.

Assault and battery is a misdemeanor charge and should stay that way if it's more serious they get charged with unlawful wounding or malicious wounding stop putting everything under felony charges it is almost impossible for people to find work because of the felony charge this is why people reoffend

House Bill 294 and House Bill 295 because both measures directly strengthen public safety and protect the rule of law. Correctional officers operate in one of the most dangerous environments in our criminal justice system. They maintain order among individuals who have already demonstrated a willingness to disregard the law. When violent attacks against correctional officers are not clearly and forcefully deterred, the risk extends beyond the jail walls to other officers, inmates, and ultimately the public. HB 294 ensures meaningful felony consequences for malicious bodily injury against correctional officers, providing clarity for prosecutors and deterrence for offenders. HB 295 appropriately recognizes that the intentional, premeditated killing of a correctional officer is among the most serious crimes imaginable and must carry the strongest penalties available under Virginia law. These bills are not symbolic. They are practical tools that help prosecutors protect those who protect society and reinforce that violence against public servants will be met with firm accountability. For these reasons, I respectfully urge passage of HB 294 and HB 295. Respectfully, Phillip L. Blevins, Jr. Commonwealth's Attorney

The attached letter is from the Grayson County Commonwealth's Attorney, Brandon R. Boyles. Supporting HB294 and HB295 by Delegate Cornett, and highlighting the disparities in the Code when determining appropriate charges as it relates to the crimes of Aggravated Murder and Malicious Wounding in the view of Corrections Officers.

House Bill 294 and House Bill 295 because both measures directly strengthen public safety and protect the rule of law. Correctional officers operate in one of the most dangerous environments in our criminal justice system. They maintain order among individuals who have already demonstrated a willingness to disregard the law. When violent attacks against correctional officers are not clearly and forcefully deterred, the risk extends beyond the jail walls to other officers, inmates, and ultimately the public. HB 294 ensures meaningful felony consequences for malicious bodily injury against correctional officers, providing clarity for prosecutors and deterrence for offenders. HB 295 appropriately recognizes that the intentional, premeditated killing of a correctional officer is among the most serious crimes imaginable and must carry the strongest penalties available under Virginia law. These bills are not symbolic. They are practical tools that help prosecutors protect those who protect society and reinforce that violence against public servants will be met with firm accountability. For these reasons, I respectfully urge passage of HB 294 and HB 295. Respectfully, Phillip L. Blevins, Jr. Commonwealth's Attorney

The attached letter is from the Grayson County Commonwealth's Attorney, Brandon R. Boyles. Supporting HB294 and HB295 by Delegate Cornett, and highlighting the disparities in the Code when determining appropriate charges as it relates to the crimes of Aggravated Murder and Malicious Wounding in the view of Corrections Officers.

Any form of officer who take an oath if they break the law they should be held accountable just like anyone else no one should be able to commit a crime and not be punished .

As a member of the Virginia Restorative Justice Policy Coalition, I am writing to share Central Virginia Community Justice's support for HB489, the restorative justice confidentiality bill. We believe it is imperative to enact this confidentiality law. It will provide assurance to restorative justice participants and practitioners, as well as attorneys across the state, that private information will be protected when people engage in the vulnerable RJ process. We know that the legal assurance of confidentiality matters for defense attorneys advising their clients whether to participate; for victim/witness when supporting survivors who are deciding whether to engage; and for each person who shares their personal experience during an RJ circle. Personally, I have seen many cases where restorative justice participants express relief and improved well-being at the conclusion of their case, but do not want to share the specifics of what was said in a courtroom or with their attorney. I want our program, and others across the state, to be able to offer full assurance and protection to our participants that they will not have to; and that our staff can also keep their personal information confidential. In Charlottesville/Albemarle, we are lucky to have strong support from our Commonwealth's Attorney Offices, and a Memorandum of Understanding that affirms confidentiality for restorative justice cases. But we know that it would be even more secure to have this protection encoded into law. Please support HB489. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ashley Cinalli-Mathews Executive Director Central Virginia Community Justice

Confidentiality is the bedrock of healing; without it, survivors cannot safely engage in the honest dialogue necessary to repair harm. This bill protects the sanctity of restorative practices by ensuring that personal communications remain inadmissible in court, preventing the legal system from weaponizing a survivor’s journey toward closure. S4JR supports HB489 because it empowers survivors to define their own path to justice in a safe, protected environment.

HB548 repeals and replaces the existing Virginia Health Care Decisions Act developed years ago through a series of meetings with disability organizations, medical professionals, legal representatives, and others. The term “quality of life” can be viewed differently by people with disabilities and others. People with disabilities can experience services and treatment that they view as acceptable and helpful. While others who are not experiencing significant disability may view those same interventions as being intrusive or otherwise they make judgements lacking personal disability experience. Definitions of “life-sustaining care” and “reasonable medical judgement” are in current law but not HB548. HB548 would allow for the denial or withdrawal of life sustaining treatments. If an individual has been using these interventions prior to a critical health situation, the individual may have a different view from treating professionals about the use of these interventions and quality of life. The Commonwealth has a good Health Care Decisions Act. While there are a few provisions of HB548 that might strengthen current law, there are concerns that HB548 would rescind, weaken or unnecessarily change current law. Attachment is a description of amendments to be considered if HB548 were to be moved forward.