States Question Cost Of Walsh Act
The Adam Walsh Act was an instant controversy. But all the debate between advocates and attorneys over whether the Walsh Act is legal or logical now seems for naught. In this economy, the real question is not whether the Walsh Act is constitutional, but whether it’s too expensive. By many calculations, it is.
Sex offender management boards in California and Colorado have recommended their states reject the Adam Walsh Act — which changes the way states track and monitor sex offenders — in part because of the crippling cost. Other states, including Florida, Iowa, Virginia and Texas, are also doing the math and finding that the federal standard seems more expensive to adopt than to ignore, no matter the penalty. And there are penalties. States have until July 27 to become compliant with Walsh sex offender regulations or risk losing federal finding.
In Nevada, [for example] meeting the deadline could safeguard hundreds of thousands of dollars. But carrying out the provisions of the Walsh Act could cost millions … Nevada is crunching the numbers. So with the deadline for compliance looming, no one knows whether Nevada going to spend millions to save thousands. Part of the reason Nevada doesn’t know how much Walsh will cost may lie in the state’s speedy adoption of the federal act. Nevada is one of eight states that passed Walsh regulations after Congress approved them in 2006. The vast remainder of states instead chose to evaluate the Walsh Act, considering its constitutionality first and then its cost. Concerns now coming to light in these states were barely discussed in Nevada. Instead, issues with Walsh are being worked out in Nevada courts as a result of those lawsuits levied against the act …
To understand what kind of money Nevada might end up spending — if the law weathers court challenges — we can only look to the calculations of other states. In California, the Sex Offender Management Board came up with an initial assessment of $38 million. Missing the deadline, by comparison, would cost $210,000 … California, though, has a much higher population of sex offenders than Nevada. So perhaps a more apt comparison for Nevada is Virginia, where officials figured it would cost $12.4 million to carry out the Walsh regulations, or $400,000 not to. Or consider Florida: about $3.2 million for Walsh, versus a $2.1 million to $2.8 million penalty for missing the deadline, if not rejecting the sex offender legislation outright. Each state used its own formula, and each came up with the same answer: It would cost more to adopt than to ignore … Not a single state — including the eight that adopted Walsh regulations — has been deemed “compliant” with the law. And noncompliance means a reduction in funding once the deadline passes …
Walsh could be complicated and costly enough to prompt politicians in the states where the act has not yet been voted on to simply decide they aren’t interested. And if this happens, the entire purpose of the Walsh Act, which was to create a national, unified system for dealing with sex offenders in every state, could be undermined — leaving Nevada, as an early adopter, with its hands tied.
The article in the Las Vegas Sun contains a long and detailed look at these important arguments.