January 2026 Legislative Tracker

Florida SB 212 and HB 45 would add public swimming pools or public bathing places to covered geography in some circumstances, broaden proximity and loitering exposure from 300 feet to 500 feet in certain child-congregation contexts, create notice duties involving schools or child care facilities, require registry checks before certain public employment or appointment decisions, authorize warrantless arrest for specified violations, and add or revise supervision conditions.

From the registrant-family perspective, this is direct negative movement. The bill relies on broad geographic and status-based restrictions rather than individualized risk, increasing the chance that stability itself becomes harder to maintain. Families could face more forced moves, fewer daily-life options, and higher arrest risk without evidence that wider exclusion zones produce real prevention.

South Carolina H. 4683 would revise the definition of “children’s recreational facility,” add offenses that trigger residence exclusions near schools, daycare centers, recreational facilities, parks, or public playgrounds, restrict certain registrants from owning, operating, or being employed by businesses or organizations serving minors or allowing unsupervised access to minors, and require SLED to notify registrants of the act’s provisions.

This is negative movement for registrants and families because it expands status-based exclusion without requiring individualized risk findings. The employment and ownership pieces are especially important: public safety is not strengthened when lawful work, business ownership, and stable housing are treated as threats by default.

West Virginia SB 500 would prohibit people required to register from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, park, or playground. Its retroactivity and prospectivity language raises heightened concern because it could affect people whose convictions or housing arrangements predate the bill.

This is direct negative movement. It treats geography as a substitute for individualized assessment and risks pushing people away from family support, employment, treatment, and stable housing. For families, the harm is not abstract: a compliant home could become unavailable because a map changed.

West Virginia HB 4135 would require registrants to provide online identifiers associated with internet accounts and mobile application accounts, and to report information about ATVs or UTVs they operate. HB 4138 would clarify that sexual extortion and aggravated sexual extortion require registration and that a repealed spousal sexual-assault offense remains registerable, with January committee context describing retroactive registration language.

This is negative movement because it expands both what must be reported and who may be required to register. The online-account language is especially sensitive: digital life is not optional for work, family communication, services, education, and civic participation. Reporting systems need narrow scope, safe harbors, and law-enforcement-only treatment.

Maryland HB 287 would alter the conditions and administration of lifetime sexual-offender supervision, including potential conditions such as GPS monitoring, proximity limits, restrictions on employment or activities involving minors, treatment, computer access checks, polygraph testing, and contact restrictions. It also affects management-team reporting, hearings, victim notice, and discharge petitions.

This is mixed movement. Process changes may clarify review, but expanded or more rigid supervision conditions can intensify daily-life control and technical-violation risk. SOLAR’s lens is whether review is meaningful, individualized, and reachable for people without money, counsel, or perfect historical records.

Maryland HB 501 and SB 407 would alter penalties and offense language involving sexual offense by a person in a position of authority while also changing definitions of “tier I sex offender” and “tier III sex offender” for registry purposes.

This is negative movement because the bill set could move people into more burdensome registry classifications depending on final text and offense mapping. Before any tier expansion is adopted, lawmakers should show exactly who is affected, whether application is prospective only, and what relief remains available.

Maryland HB 12 would authorize a local superintendent or superintendent’s designee to access the juvenile sex-offender registry and would add offenses to the list requiring juvenile registry inclusion.

This is negative movement for youth and families. School systems need safety planning tools, but registry expansion and broader institutional access can undermine education stability, privacy, and rehabilitation unless access is narrow, controlled, and paired with enforceable anti-misuse safeguards.

The Sixth Circuit opinion in Doe v. Burlew vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not finally decide whether Kentucky’s law is constitutional; it required the district court to complete the facial-overbreadth analysis.

This is mixed movement. The injunction posture changed in a way that may increase uncertainty for affected people, but the First Amendment challenge remains alive. The deeper issue is whether the state can force public self-identification online without individualized findings, exposing registrants and families to doxxing, harassment, and collateral stigma.

California AB 1568 concerns Penal Code section 290.5, California’s petition process for termination from the registry after completion of the minimum registration period. The bill would add or emphasize judicial considerations related to whether the registrable offense involved a position of trust or authority and whether the petitioner participated in or completed treatment.

This is unclear movement. A well-designed petition process can support individualized review, but added factors can also make relief harder in practice. The key question is whether AB 1568 preserves meaningful termination or converts eligibility into a more discretionary and resource-heavy process.

California SB 680 amended Penal Code section 290 to require registration for specified Penal Code section 261.5(c) or 261.5(d) convictions when the offense occurs on or after January 1, 2026. The placement is generally tier one, meaning a 10-year minimum registration period, unless the statutory age-gap and offense-only exception applies.

This is negative movement because it prospectively expands who enters the registry. The limited exception matters, but implementation must be clear enough that affected people, defense counsel, courts, and families understand who is covered and how termination eligibility works.

New Hampshire RSA 651-B:1 lists amendments effective January 1, 2026, updating definitions of sexual offense, offense against a child, and tier I, tier II, and tier III sex offender categories. The amended language includes “creation of a child intimate visual representation” among listed offenses and contains process language requiring an opportunity to be heard, stated reasons, and appeal rights when courts impose registration for certain otherwise unlisted offenses.

This is mixed movement. The updated offense lists may expand covered categories, while the hearing, reason-giving, and appeal language may improve process in some court-imposed registration decisions. The practical effect will depend on implementation and notice.