What happened: The Midland City Council voted 4–2 on Tuesday, Jan. 13. Councilmen John Burkholder and John Norman voted against deferring action on a proposed ordinance that would restrict where registered sex offenders may live and enter, even as other council members cited concerns from judges and attorneys about whether courts could enforce the law as written.

Why it matters: Police leadership says the ordinance applies to 253 registered sex offenders, less than 0.2% of Midland’s population, framing it as a child-safety measure. Still, research has consistently questioned whether residency and proximity buffers reduce sexual abuse.

Federal research has also questioned the effectiveness of residency and proximity buffers. The U.S. Department of Justice’s SMART Office concluded there is “no empirical support” that such buffers reduce reoffending. A peer-reviewed study in Criminal Justice Policy Review similarly found no significant differences in recidivism based on proximity to restricted areas.

What they’re saying: Councilman Jack Ladd, an attorney, said members of the local judiciary and legal community approached him with concerns about how the ordinance would work in practice. He added that they are unsure how the city could prosecute a Class C misdemeanor tied to conduct that often overlaps with felony-level supervision.

“They wish to have clarification before they know how to enforce it,” Ladd said, referring to members of the local judiciary and legal community. “Probation has no idea how to enforce it. The judiciary has no idea how to enforce it.”

Councilman Brian Stubbs said the city needed to get the ordinance right the first time to ensure consistent and fair implementation.

“The ordinance needs to go in place, but there is some kind of issues with how we institute this and carry it out in a fair and just way,” Stubbs said.

The other side: Councilman John Burkholder said he did not want to delay passage, arguing the city needed the ordinance in place now. He acknowledged the need for enforceability but said he worried that deferring would dilute the ordinance or delay action.

The bottom line: Even supporters of deferral stressed that the ordinance itself was necessary. Council members said the issue was not whether to act, but how to ensure the city passes a law that courts can interpret and apply consistently without requiring piecemeal amendments later. Staff told council they would work with judges and legal stakeholders to present a revised ordinance that is “legally defensible” and clear on enforcement.