SB 212 is on the Judiciary Committee agenda for tomorrow – Write these Senators TODAY!
Senate Bill 212 is on the Judiciary Committee agenda to be heard Tomorrow, February 10, 2026. This is a horrible bill that would not only add “public swimming pools” and “public bathing areas” to the 1000 foot residency restrictions, but would add a 200 foot proximity ban (retroactively), meaning you cannot go anywhere within 200 feet of a school, park, playground, daycare, public swimming pool or public bathing area. We’ve had a CALL TO ACTION posted to the top of our website containing the details, but below, for easier reference, are the Senators on the Judiciary Committee that you need to contact today. This is something that will cost you nothing, will take only a few minutes of your time, and can ensure that your voice (along with many others) will be heard. Please do not think ‘others are going to do their part so I don’t need to’. You absolutely need to! Even if it is one sentence letting the Senators know you Oppose SB 212, it counts towards making strong opposition known.
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Senator Clay Yarborough (R) – Chair
(850) 487-5004
Senator Colleen Burton (R) – Vice Chair
(850) 487-5012
Senator Lori Berman (D)
(850) 487-5026
Senator Nick DiCeglie (R)
(850) 487-5018
Senator Don Gaetz (R)
(850) 487-5001
Senator Ed Hooper (R)
(850) 487-5021
Senator Thomas J. “Tom” Leek (R)
(850) 487-5007
Senator Rosalind Osgood (D)
(850) 487-5032
Senator Kathleen Passidomo (R)
(850) 487-5028
Senator Tina Scott Polsky (D)
(850) 487-5030
Senator Jay Trumbull (R)
(850) 487-5002
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am still confused, does the retroactive apply to the closeness to a body of water make you move? I have been just 150 feet from a lake for the past 20 years. If so, you guys might never see me on here again because it won’t be pleasant for me or those who force me out.
Already hard to find a place to live, as it is, but being removed from an existing residence is a nightmare in the making. Might as well send us all to a remote island, that is what it is coming to.
Maybe I should stop coming on f.a.c and just convince myself that it will all go away if I do not know about it.
I said that in jest because I cannot find ANY of this info anywhere other that F.A.C, if not for them telling is, many of us would be in jail for non-compliance. But how are we non-compliant when so many retro-active laws are deemed “NON-PUNITIVE” by the courts.
Ok Elvis has left the building, I need to take my heart medication, as I have gotten myself all worked up.
Ok all senators on the Jud Committee emailed.
My email:
Subject: Please Vote NO on SB 212 — Conflicts with Ellingburg and Creates Constitutional Liability
Dear Chair Yarborough, Vice Chair Burton, and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
I am writing to urge the full Judiciary Committee to vote NO on SB 212. This bill is constitutionally vulnerable, unsupported by empirical evidence, and directly conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2025 decision in Ellingburg v. United States.
In Ellingburg, the Court held that when a statute imposes state‑enforced obligations tied to a past conviction, those obligations constitute criminal punishment, regardless of the label the legislature applies. Courts must evaluate effects, not terminology.
SB 212 clearly meets the punitive criteria identified in Ellingburg because it:
Applies exclusively to individuals with past convictions
Imposes non‑optional, state‑enforced restrictions
Limits housing, employment, and movement
Expands obligations retroactively
Creates lifetime burdens unrelated to current conduct or risk
Under Ellingburg, these are punitive effects—not civil regulations. Passing SB 212 would expose the State of Florida to immediate constitutional challenges on Ex Post Facto, Due Process, and Double Jeopardy grounds.
Additionally, the latest criminological research shows:
People on the registry have among the lowest reoffense rates of any supervised population
Residency and proximity restrictions do not improve public safety
Destabilizing housing and employment increases risk, not reduces it
SB 212 would also create severe unintended consequences for seniors, veterans, assisted‑living residents, and individuals who rely on stable housing and medical access. The 200‑foot proximity ban is so expansive that it would make ordinary daily life nearly impossible in many Florida communities.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Judiciary Committee to vote NO on SB 212 and prevent Florida from enacting legislation that is both unconstitutional and counterproductive to public safety.
Thank you for your time and your service to the people of Florida.
Sincerely,
Tearful
I used to be a professional writer and your post/email to those involved is one of the top ten best I have seen sent by someone on here, involving a request to re-consider. I hope they do not brush it off. Let them walk a month in our shoes and see at least how it affects our families and loved ones.
So please don’t sue me for plagiarism. Copy and paste what you wrote then email the people above done in like 5 minutes.
Please people it only takes 5 minutes to do this.
Like I said before, I do maintenance for several hotels with pool and if I lose my job over this b.s I’m suing the s*** out of Florida i dont care. Bring the fight
There won’t be a need to sue if it doesn’t become law.
If you have not done so already, be sure to e-mail or call Senate Judiciary Committee members.
I emailed everyone on the list you provided.
I did my part. Thank you, FAC. We would never have known about these bills without you.
Just sayin
AND, without FAC, most if not ALL of us would be back behind bars. Not because we committed another crime, but for the unconstitutional add-ons they keep adding to our plate. They throw crap at the wall and hope it sticks and the courts approve it. If it gets shot down, you know what they do, make an even worse bill, and dare us to challenge it.
Sent emails to the Senators yesterday. I stated that this bill restricts movement and commerce to extreme levels – restricted zones will likely include some doctors offices, dental offices, clinics, gas stations, fast food restaurants, grocery stores, markets, etc. Registered tourists can abandon their plans to see the ocean or gulf coast/fishing. It’s really concerning that our legislators are going for this bill, given the extreme restrictions of movement (I’m trying to be courteous here). Then there is the “arrest without warrant” based in the opinion of the LEO. This Bill is paralyzing! SB 212 can’t be constitutional. And how many people in Florida have had the requirement to register ended?!
Wayne
Very few have been removed in Florida. I have Spoken to several lawyers who do this type of work and most of them said it is getting harder to get removed, unless your charges were mild.
LoL, I would love to know what they define as mild!
Tereto
An example is, someone who looked at underage photos online, as opposed to someone who actually has sex with a minor. Not downplaying underaged picture viewing, but it is a lesser offense, mostly. Someone might get probation for looking at porn, but get a long prison sentence for an actual physical act.