CALL TO ACTION #3 for HB 1085 Moved to new committees: Infrastructure & Appropriations Subcommittee and Infrastructure Strategies Committee
This Call To Action has been superseded. Comments are now disabled.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW CTA
Major Concerns About This Bill:
- The bill states that all driver’s licenses and identification cards for people on the registry “shall have printed in the color red all information otherwise required to be printed on the front of the license or identification card.” HB 1085, lines 805-821
- This bill was passed by a vote of 16 to 2 in the Transportation & Modals Subcommittee on 3.15.2023 as a result of a good deal of misinformation. The sponsor, Rep. Patt Maney, did not seem to fully understand what the correct wording was in the bill relating to the red lettering, nor the decision that came out of the Alabama case.
- No committee member or analyst seemed to be aware of the court decisions in Alabama and Louisiana.
- This bill will be moving on to the Infrastructure & Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee and the Infrastructure Strategies Committee, which are both in the House of Representatives.
PLEASE Do the Following:
- Call all members of the Infrastructure & Appropriations Subcommittee and the Infrastructure Strategies Committee
- Whether you talk to a person or voicemail, you must give your name and contact information (phone numbers work). Remember that all voicemails are checked, so you can call after hours.
- State that you OPPOSE the part of the bill that would require the red lettering on driver’s licenses for people on the registry.
- Mention that you are a constituent if you happen to live in the representative’s district.
- Give two brief reasons why you oppose the red lettering on the licenses.
- Ask family members and friends to also call to oppose the red lettering.
Talking Points:
- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Louisiana’s appeal of a decision against its 2006 law requiring that people on the sex offense registry have their driver’s license or identification card marked with “SEX OFFENDER” in orange letters. The Louisiana Supreme Court said the marking was compelled speech and could not be justified by the state’s interest in protecting public safety.
- In 2019, a federal judge struck down Alabama’s sex offense registration law that required registrants to carry a driver’s license or official ID with “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” emblazoned in red.
- If this bill is passed as is, will Florida also be facing a costly lawsuit?
- There are currently 52 registry requirements for people on the sex offense registry. Every Florida legislator should have received a copy of the timeline of these registry requirements that started off with 3 in 1997 and have grown to 52 by 2020. Failure to fulfill any of these requirements could lead up to 5 years of imprisonment, even for the thousands of Florida registrants who are now law-abiding citizens.
- While there is no research showing a need for the red lettering on licenses, there is an abundance of research showing that the sexual recidivism rate for people with a past sex offense is lower than that for all other crimes, with the exception of murder.
- Research has shown that at least 90% of FUTURE sex crimes will be committed by people NOT on the registry.
- The first-of-its-kind meta-analysis study of 25 years of findings of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) evaluations and their effects on recidivism was published in 2021. Eighteen research articles including 474,640 formerly incarcerated individuals were used. (Journal of Experimental Criminology,“The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings”, Kristen M. Zgoba and Meghan M. Mitchell, September 2021)
- Some of the findings of the above-mentioned study: (1) The sex offense registries have had no effect on sexual and non-sexual crime commission over their periods of existence, thereby failing to deliver on the intention of increasing public safety; (2) Public safety could likely be maximized by focusing limited resources on the highest-risk individuals, rather than utilizing a one-size-fits-all law; and (3) It is time that we work as an empirically informed community, unhindered by emotion, to find a solution to reining the “horse back into the barn”, i.e., reining in the numerous sex offense registry statutes.
Even though the bill passed through the Transportation and Modals Subcommittee, comments were made by different representatives showing that some of the representatives did take note of the high number of calls their office received opposing the red lettering. YOUR CALL DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!
Phone Numbers for the Infrastructure & Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee:
- Robert Andrade (Chair – R): (850) 717-5002
- Linda Chaney (Vice Chair – R): (850) 717-5061
- David Silvers (Democratic Ranking Member – D): (850) 717-5089
- Bruce Antone (D): (850) 717-5041
- Kimberly Berfield (R): (850) 717-5058
- Robert Brackett (R): (850) 717-5034
- Dan Daley (D): (850) 717-5096
- Tiffany Esposito (R): (850) 717-5077
- Mike Giallombardo (R): (850) 717-5079
- Jennifer Harris (D): (850) 717-5044
- Chip LaMarca (R): (850) 717-5100
- Vicki Lopez (R): (850) 717-5113
- Susan Plascencia (R): (850) 717-5037
- Felicia Robinson (D): (850) 717-5104
- Bradford Yeager (R): (850) 717-5056
Phone Numbers for the Infrastructure Strategies Committee:
- Bobby Payne (Chair – R): (850) 717-5020
- Sam Garrison (Vice Chair – R): (850) 717-5011
- David Smith (Republican Committee Whip – R): (850) 717-5038
- Christine Hunschofsky (Democratic Ranking Member – D): (850) 717-5095
- Robert Andrade (R): (850) 717-5002
- Adam Botana (R): (850) 717-5080
- Robert Brackett (R): (850) 717-5034
- James Buchanan (R): (850) 717-5074
- Hillary Cassel (D): (850) 717-5101
- Linda Chaney (R): (850) 717-5061
- Anna Eskamani (D): (850) 717-5042
- Tom Fabricio (R): (850) 717-5110
- Michael Gottlieb (D): (850) 717-5102
- Sam Killebrew (R): (850) 717-5048
- Johanna Lopez (D): (850) 717-5043
- Fiona McFarland (R): (850) 717-5073
- James Mooney, Jr. (R): (850) 717-5120
- Angela Nixon (D): (850) 717-5013
- Susan Plasencia (R): (850) 717-5037
- Felicia Robinson (D): (850) 717-5104
- Jason Shoaf (R): (850) 717-5007
- Cyndi Stevenson (R): (850) 717-5018
- Josie Tomkow (R): (850) 717-5051
- Keith Truenow (R): (850) 717-5026
Every call gets heard and tallied. Every respectful conversation with a staffer is an excellent opportunity to change a mind about our community with someone who has direct contact with a lawmaker. YOUR EFFORTS DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
This Call To Action has been superseded. Comments are now disabled.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEW CTA
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So my experience was, when I called during office hours and got an aide I was referred to my rep. So I called my rep and after hours left a VM for all committee members. I also emailed each committee member. Please be vigilant!
I’m sure there are many out there that are surprised this hasn’t happened already, but they feel emboldened to pass it NOW because everyone on the hit list falls into the “anti-woke” umbrella of exclusion and hate.
Something tells me things haven’t even gotten bad yet.
If this measure passes, it will only open the door for future insidious “notification” laws under the false guise of public safety.
We’re most likely 5 years away from QR code tattoos on our foreheads and the courts will claim “it’s no different than having one’s fingerprints taken.”
I am not sure why some people are saying that only a few offices received calls. What I heard at the meeting was that many offices received many calls.
While on the subject of contacting our Florida Legislators, I was very disturbed by the misinformation given out at the March 15 Transportation and Modals Subcommittee meeting along with the complete omission of some information So, I carefully listened again to the comments made and did a sort of fact check that I have mailed through the U.S. mail to all representatives on the Infrastructure & Tourism Appropriations Subcommittee, which should be the next committee that HB 1085 goes to.
We might not be able to stop them from passing this bill, but at least they will not be able to say that no one told them the truth.
@ Education- Thank you!
I made all the calls to the next two committees. But I can’t bring myself to watch the video. I should, but it gets me to upset and then I can’t sleep.
Thank you for the calls. I can understand not wanting to watch the video. Others have said the same thing. I was so upset that I could not sleep that night and was up during the wee hours of the morning working on my fact-checking letter to the next committee members.
Education, I was thinking, the next time we update this Call to Action, we might use your fact-check letters to update the talking points. Now that we have a better idea of what committee members are being told and what they aren’t. What do you think?
Unless that takes too much time.
We might also de-emphasize the two court cases somewhat, for reasons I have outlined.
I tried, but it is not going to happen. I will try to incorporate some of this in future Calls To Action.
Just a thought, maybe only a few representative offices said they got calls, may be because some got weary of calling and give up before completely calling the list.
It’s daunting making the calls but we have to!
At least we can say we tried
Call and let the voices be heard. It is extremely targeted towards one particular group. These activities of coloring codes on drivers licenses are nothing more then the equivalent of the “scarlet letter”.
Apologies in advance for misused legal terminology – I’m a member but this is my first time commenting.
If this progresses to the point where it appears it could actually pass, could the lawyers prepare for a speedy injunction request and quickly-filed lawsuit before we all have to go pay money to get our scarlet letter licenses? Is that something we should proactively start funding?
For my part, I’m praying for the Lord to work in the hearts and minds of our lawmakers, and I encourage other believers here to do the same! He is “able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine,” (Eph 3:20), and “the heart of [our lawmaker] is in the hand of the Lord.” (Prov. 21:1). He sees the injustice we’re enduring – may He correct it and be glorified.
I’d love an injunction but that may be wishful thinking here. Our path of least resistance would be keeping this from getting out of committee.
Agreed, But if it passes we would be foolish to not have funded and ready an injunction. Maybe we can set up a $1,000 thermometer to pre fund it. I believe it is $400 to file an injunction. Thoughts. I pledge $100 can I get a matching 9 more or 18 $50
I’d love an injunction but the courts can’t grant them just for the asking. There has to be a legal reason that they need to do so.
We’d have to show that we’re likely to prevail based on existing case law.
And you don’t think we can?
I just don’t see how. I don’t think we have compelling case law associated with what this bill does.
I would argue that the word sexual predator “. Is not the least restrictive way of doing it. Putting all our information in red is also not the least restrictive and by doing so we are being forced to carry the government’s message as red has always been the color of Danger
I agree, but the court doesn’t. The Alabama court has opined that “sexual predator” on select registrants’ licenses IS in fact part of the least restrictive means. And on red font color the court has not had to rule either way.
Below is an excerpt from Doe v Marshall
Plaintiffs rely on Wooley and its progeny to argue that printing “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” on state-issued identification cards is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are correct. The branded-ID requirement compels speech, and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest.
Anyone reading that case in full will also see that the court identified Florida’s scheme, including the “‘sexual predator’ label applied to the most serious offenders,” IS an example of “the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.”
I disagree with the court on this and agree with your position, but we can’t pretend the case supports our position. It doesn’t, no matter how much I would like it to.
And that case did not consider the issue of font color, which is the only thing this bill changes.
My first post is awaiting review but found this reading the RI entry. The residency restriction has been under injunction if I read the article right since 2015. Meaning the state couldn’t enforce it until the case was settled. This is why I suggested to have an injunction ready to go.