Julie Jarvis

The lawmaker votes for the amendment, noting that not every school district takes the NAPE exam and therefore it is an incomplete measure of student proficiency.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it allows military spouses with existing certifications to begin teaching immediately upon moving to Wyoming, bypassing extensive certification delays.

The lawmaker emphasizes that the amendment addresses a specific issue affecting students who finish learning early but face enrollment drops, rather than increasing funding. She states she knows of four students currently impacted by this rule.

The lawmaker supports an amendment because she believes the bill allows children to override school policies and procedures, which opens up unnecessary litigation that could be solved by addressing specific district policies instead.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because using funds upfront for a degree that is later changed could leave students without financial support to complete their education, creating a mess rather than helping them.

The lawmaker concludes the bill causes more harm than good because it fails to address the full scope of sexually explicit materials, specifically online content. They explicitly request a vote against the bill based on this deficiency.

The lawmaker supports the bill because she believes children are naturally dependent and that providing assistance does not create harmful dependency habits in parents or kids.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it establishes necessary guardrails to prevent vehicles from crossing private land and provides clarity for law enforcement and recreationalists.

The lawmaker argues against blunt cuts, suggesting instead a deeper investigation into employee roles and specific legislation regarding administrative limits rather than immediate funding reductions.

The lawmaker explains that delaying salary increases causes the required adjustment amount to grow and leads to unfilled positions because workers can earn more elsewhere.

The lawmaker supports the amendment based on a personal experience requiring medical attention for childbirth, arguing against delaying action which could have unintended consequences.

The lawmaker opposes enacting the other bill because, despite having beautiful language, they believe it will cause harm and fail to fulfill its design.