Name Ernest Blevins
Office Sought House of Delegates
Party Affiliation Republican
District 57
City/Town Charleston
Campaign Website electblevins.com
The US Supreme Court will decide Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization this summer, which some have speculated may overturn Roe v. Wade. If there were no Constitutional protections for abortion, what do you think West Virginia's abortion policies should be?
As posted on my campaign website, if the lack of a heartbeat determines clinical death, then life should be determined by the presence of a heartbeat.” Biologically, this is the most consistent position to maintain.
Several West Virginia municipalities have passed ordinances that expand the definition of racial discrimination to include discriminating against traditional or natural hair textures and styles. Would you support expanding this protection statewide? Why or why not?
I think that business does have a right to set a standard for employee looks that represents their company image. This could be a uniform, beards/mustaches rules, tattoos, or piercings depending on what image the company may want to portray. That is the company’s business and their right. Since we grant companies “personhood” to pay taxes and participate in politics, they are given the same rights as a person. Should someone be discriminated on hair? No. Although a case could be made if one’s hair is a safety issue and no other protections can be accommodated. Should this be a statewide protection? My opinion is no, but I’d be open to hearing a case made about it. Should the state ban local ordinances on this? My opinion is also no.
Many states have created laws that seek to limit the teaching of "divisive concepts" or "critical race theory". West Virginia narrowly missed passing a similar law during the 2022 Legislative Session. What is the value or harm in teaching these topics and what role should the legislature play in determining this curriculum?
The wording is interesting as it is leading, as West Virginia narrowly hit better describes the situation. A near or narrow hit is really a miss, and a near or narrow miss is actually getting the target. Isn’t English wonderful? Having taught history at Georgia Highlands College and Middle Tennessee State University, this new concept of “critical race theory” is not, as advertised, teaching “real” history. It is teaching a history of blame and divisiveness. History is not all good or all bad. The facts are the facts, and interpretation of those facts pays many historians’ salaries and book sales. Instead of teaching facts, “critical race theory” attempts to create misinterpretations. It claims to fight racial bias; however, it further installs racial bias by attempting to place prejudice and discrimination in society where none exists.
Currently there is no statewide law protecting people in matters of employment, housing, and public accommodations based on their sexuality or gender identity. Proponents claim these protections are necessary for ongoing discrimination by the LGBTQ community. Opponents claim that such protections infringe upon religious beliefs. What do you believe and would you support or oppose a statewide law?
In reviewing the current notice on the Human Rights and Fair Housing laws (see http://hrc.wv.gov/about/Documents/NEW%20Notice%20HRA%20FHA%20PWFA.pdf), I do not see a reason to add more classes to what is currently exists. I see no need to expand as sex is already covered. Law already prevents discrimination based on sex which covers the gender question. The present law on employment and housing is good as it stands. I would likely not support a change in state law; however, depending on what is covered under new classifications could alter my initial opinion.
Recently a revival was held at schools in Cabell and Wayne counties. The Legislature has, in recent years, passed laws to allow teaching the Bible in public schools and allowing for religious drug-prevention programs to operate in schools. What do you think the role of religion in public schools should be and why?
When I was in high school in South Carolina, in 10th grade, the Bible was taught as literature (this was not an opt-out situation in the 1980s). While I didn’t care for this as a student, it led to a better understanding of the literature and historical aspects beyond the religious aspects). Teaching history in college, I realized what students think about religion does not matter to understanding history. In Colonial and Early American history, the players studied believed in religion, and that belief did influence their actions. Thus, learning about this is not a bad idea. However, preaching about religion is a different matter. In the case cited above, it was during school hours that, as I understand it, some teachers took it upon themselves to require students to attend a voluntary event. That requirement to attend is the issue. Some places, schools are used as churches on Sundays too. I don’t oppose prayers at events; it is a tradition. When a prayer is offered for non-believers of faith, one can be respectful with no undue burden. People believe; people don’t believe. If the religion is not physically hurting someone or animals, then what’s lost by respecting someone else’s views? There are so many things that don’t hurt people, including religion, that a few seconds of respecting another’s views that are harmless to you is not an undue burden. This can be expanded to views on billboard advertisements that might offend one, flags, monuments, or public events of music one doesn’t support or like. Freedom of religion is just that, freedom of it (or not to have one); it is not a freedom from religion. If one wants freedom from religion, it is their responsibility to segregate from it vs. forcing all to segregate from it.
The West Virginia Senate recently unanimously adopted a resolution stating that West Virginia is prepared to welcome Ukrainian refugees. Critics have pointed out that the Legislature has recently considered legislation what would make things more difficult for refugees and immigrants to settle in West Virginia. Should West Virginia welcome refugees and immigrants? If no, why not? If yes, what can the state do to support these communities?
To answer this question, parameters need to be set. By citing the migration of people as immigration one must determine is that legal immigration or illegal immigration as the response to the question varies greatly once defined. Those that come via legal immigration to the United States should be welcomed as they have demonstrated their respect to the process of our laws. Took the time and likely funds to get to the point of legally passing through like millions since 1875 and 1882 – the years of the first immigration acts which codified and formulated who and by what process could immigrate to the United States. Step up and do immigration legally, welcome. The first citizenship laws to be naturalized was 1790 with persons having thresholds to pass before becoming a citizen after two years of residency – expanded to five years in 1790. That said, the first act of immigration is breaking immigration law by crossing a border or entering a port without proper paperwork, then requesting special status is not an appropriate action for someone attempting to claim wanting to come under the protection of the United States or claiming they will be a future good, law abiding citizen. Then go to the back of the line and work it up properly and legally while waiting in the home nation or a foreign host nation. Legitimate refugees come though designated ports, illegitimate refugees come though wherever they can without taking the proper course. West Virginia has a history of immigration. The coal miners in Gary were largely immigrants, so much so that a significant number of graves in Gary, McDowell County, are in foreign languages. Clarksburg is noted for the heavy Italian influence coming to work the glass industry that set up in Marion County. West Virginia can take legal immigrants, and true refugees.
There is increasing tension with communities of people who are unhoused or face housing insecurity. Police breakups of encampments are common, and municipalities have shown growing opposition to low-barrier housing and recovery housing. How would you address community concerns while protecting the rights of unhoused people?
This question deals with various rights. It mentions the right of “unhoused people” to set up in encampments. When on private property without permission, these encampments infringe on the rights of that property owners. If property owners wish to remove those who set up there, they have that right, which is superior to those squatting/trespassing on their property. In the case of the public property, the same holds as the city is the property owner, such as parks, sidewalks, and streets. Low-barrier housing is not well defined in the question. I think a low barrier that allows those with pets they are taking care of is much different from a low barrier that is light on drug and alcohol use. The right of the shelter to require rules, as a private entity, is their right. If the public funds such a facility through direct or indirect funding or permitting, then illegal activities should remain illegal on-site and by those living in such facilities. Life is a choice, and choosing to do behavior not welcomed at a site is the individual's choice and responsibility. Community rights should not be surpassed and protected just as individual rights. If individual rights become an adverse effect on the community, then the community’s rights are infringed.
Police violence has been in the forefront of national headlines for several years. Some propose more civilian oversight of law enforcement through civilian review boards that could review incidents and policies. Others view these boards as "anti-police" and point out that civilians are ill-equipped to understand the nature of police work. Do you support the use of civilian review boards? What other steps, if any, should the state take to provide transparency and accountability for police?
I do hope the respect for police improves before my son is old enough to pursue his present (meaning at least 5 years) dream career as a police officer. There are many factors in police violence in the past years. One is citizens’ lack of respect for police, thus escalating situations where the accused (rightfully or not) take action in the field vs. fighting it in the court. While we might disagree on whether we deserve a speeding ticket or not. Telling the officer you disagree with it is one thing and can be done respectfully and close out with we’ll take it up in court. Trying to fight them on-site about it is a different and inappropriate matter. Could a citizen board have an understanding of police work? Many places have citizen academies to witness what officers go through in their duties. These volunteers can have oversight if they are seeing issues and reporting such. Should citizen review boards be limited to the police in a larger context? Should there be aboard for sheriff offices? Corrections? CPS/APS workers? What about children in foster care (such as one in Maryland)? What about fire or EMS? What about for city services such as trash, sewer, road works? Would I support the use of boards? Depends on the terms, who is reviewing, who is reviewing? I would be open to the discussion, including beyond police agencies, but no commitment either way without details.
Jails in West Virginia are above capacity and are bankrupting some counties. Prisons are understaffed, making them dangerous for residents and staff alike. What steps, if any, should West Virginia take to address these issues?
James Oglethorpe, the founder of the colony of Georgia, sought prison reform 293 years ago. Prison reform was a problem then, and there are still issues now. In Oglethorpe’s time, many prisoners were debtors – a factor no longer an issue. However, there are issues now that are not present then. The is no quick fix. First, those that received sentences should serve their sentences. If it was a crime at the time of the action committed, then they should serve it out – thus, changing drug laws should not free those who committed a crime when it was illegal. When was the last time one got a speeding ticket, and the speed limit is increased, then one is still on the hook with the fine and points for the ticket? Do the crime, do the time. To lower the population, reduce the intake of people. Discourage crime with vigorous enforcement that will deter others from committing a crime. Start strong discipline in school, continue it in life. I know the threat of my elementary school’s Principal Perrin Powell’s paddle kept many of my friends in line, and knowing its stories from those that had strayed. I think we are all the better for that, including those sacrificed to experience it to tell the story. Prisoners forfeit rights as punishment for their crimes, clarifying what is lost for one’s choices of actions. Loss of voting rights, loss of gun ownership, loss of freedoms, and severe crimes such as murder and loss of life are all chosen by the one doing the crime. Doing crime is a choice. Doing time is the cost. Do the time, get recovered while doing the time. Those needing treatment for additions that crime supplies the ability to fulfill the addictions should receive a balance of treatment for addiction and punishment for the crime, such as incarnation into treatment facilities. To attract and retain workers in prisons and government in general, improvement is needed in compensation to avoid turnover and retraining. On the other end of the problem, in my study of salary for a department in state government and comparison with other states with the same positions, I discovered that workers were still underpaid when adjusted to Charleston dollars. I believe this may be the case in other departments and will explore that. I do oppose the concept of private prisons for a variety of reasons. Some state workers can be sent to private contractors; however, I think the incarnation of prisoners should be limited to direct government oversight, not private business interest.
Currently, people who are incarcerated or on probation and parole for a felony conviction are unable to vote. The West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would have expanded that right to people who are on probation and parole. When, if ever do you think people should lose their right to vote? When, if ever should that right be restored?
If one desires to restore voting rights to felons, then felons should have their gun rights restored? However, loss of rights is a punishment and should be a deterrent among the things that can be lost, such as freedom. Felony should mean a permanent loss of voting rights (and one of the few cases to loose gun rights). A misdemeanor should be a loss of voting rights while in jail, prison, or probation and should not be restored until the time is served and any restitution is fulfilled. Advertise the losses of such rights should be a deterrent to those thinking of committing a crime. If it is not significant enough for them to avoid losing their rights, it should not be a concern for them to never have them again.