But what about the number of registrants who are eligible to be removed from the North Carolina sex offender registry? Initial data show that 41% of Tier 1 (lowest risk) registrants are eligible to petition for removal. Remarkably, initial data indicates a significant number of North Carolina registrants reaching eighteen years or longer of compliance without one attempt at deregistration. 

What are the similarities between COVID vaccinations and petition removals? They are both free and could save lives allowing reintegration into society without the need to mask. Even if you miss a year, there is an opportunity to utilize either later down the road. 

The current cost to file a petition with a county clerk for sex offense removal in North Carolina is zero. That is a bargain compared to South Carolina’s $250 and Virginia’s $86 removal fees (excluding the required fingerprint fees). 

While there is high speculation that this will be the final round of free COVID vaccinations, the same could be said for a free registry petition. The new eCourts will go live soon all across North Carolina. It is an expensive endeavor that is free for now but eventually will require additional funding to maintain and sustain. Only time will tell. 

The bottom line is that there are opportunities at no cost readily available to the public that often is dismissive by the people who need them the most. Every legislative body in the nation is politically quiet without rattling a cage to develop austerity schemes in the form of cuts or cost-associated services. Eventually, America must begin recouping the money it spent on COVID in addition to the billions of dollars on other programs created. The public registry is no stranger and eventually will become a rallying point that fees must be assessed to become sustainable. If a person qualifies to petition for registry removal, then it may behoove them to do so quickly before it becomes a costly endeavor. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Robert H. “Bob” Edmunds reasoned that since the statute under review in Packingham concerned only conduct, and not speech, the impact to registered citizens’ First Amendment rights was merely incidental to the otherwise legitimate interest of the state in prohibiting such conduct. He further reasoned that there were already “ample alternative means” through which registered citizens could participate in expressive forums open and available to them. His reasoning was strained and tortured and his opinion was summarily dismembered by the dissent penned by Justice Robin E. Hudson.

For additional information and analyses of what’s at stake for the community of registered citizens throughout the entire nation, please read Eugene Volokh’s piece in the Washington Post. Prof. Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law and filed an Amicus Brief in support of the petition for Certiorari in the Packingham case.