Proposition 83 – which has enjoyed 70 percent voter support in recent polls – would require sex offenders to serve harsher mandatory prison sentences on par with those given to murderers, wear a GPS tracking device for life and live at least 2,000 feet away from schools or parks, making many urban areas of the state off-limits. Some legal experts say the proposed law is unconstitutional and are predicting immediate court challenges if it passes – delaying implementation of the law for years.

“This is definitely a [Supreme] Court-worthy issue,” said Erin Murphy, a University of California at Berkeley law professor.

The main question is whether or not the law is intended to “regulate” sex offenders’ actions or “punish” them. If Proposition 83’s requirements are deemed punishment, said Murphy, they could violate a number of constitutional amendments, including equal protection, the right to free association, and cruel and unusual punishment.

There is also debate about whether or not the law is intended to apply to sex offenders such as Goldenflame, who has already served his prison term. If it does, the law may violate rights that protect people from being punished twice for the same crime.

The residency restriction, in particular, raises red flags.

“Banishment is one of the first areas where the Supreme Court held that a punishment could be unconstitutional,” said Elisabeth Semel, a law professor at UC-Berkeley. “The question now is about whether or not these restrictions are so severe that they amount to banishment; is [the proposition] banishment masquerading as public safety?”

Staff for State Sen. George Runner who authored the bill with his wife, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, say the law would not banish sex offenders or apply to those already living in their communities.

“We’re not going to draft something that’s unconstitutional,” said Becky Warren, spokesperson for Proposition 83 and George Runner. “We believe that all of these provisions will stand up to the constitutional test.”

Goldenflame, who got his law degree in 1985 before serving five years in prison for molesting his 3 year-old daughter, believes he has at least seven years of court delays before he would be forced out of his Geary Street apartment. Though it may be too late to turn the tide of voter support, Goldenflame, 69, hopes his own efforts raising awareness of Proposition 83’s downfalls will lead to its ultimate repeal by judges.

“This law will not make children safer,” he said, a view shared by a number of defense attorneys.

An outspoken supporter of Megan's Law, the 1996 state law that created the online registry of sex offenders’ addresses and photos, Goldenflame vehemently opposes Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law. He sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer suggesting a colony for sex offenders at a former military base as an alternative to the measure.

The law will make molesters more likely to kill their victims, Goldenflame said, because revised prison sentences would be the same for murder. GPS tracking, which he calls "a bad joke," will be too broadly applied, scattering law enforcement efforts away from high-risk offenders.

In the worst and most likely consequence, sex offenders would move onto the streets rather than register in permitted neighborhoods, according to California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, an alliance of defense lawyers. This is what happened in Iowa, when the legislature passed a similar residential restriction in 2001. Law enforcement is struggling to keep track of sex offenders, more than a third of whom have left the state or just stopped registering with police.

“We are spending a lot of time enforcing a law that does not enhance public safety,” said Corwin Ritchie, executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association. “We are unconvinced that there’s any connection between where an offender lives and where he or she might re-offend.”

Attorneys in Iowa and Georgia are working to repeal their residency restriction laws. California lawyers are already preparing cases to challenge Proposition 83 if it passes, but will not speak to the press for fear of jeopardizing their legal strategies.

UC-Berkeley’s Murphy is not optimistic. She believes the law has a good chance of withstanding the potential court challenges.

“The courts thus far seem unwilling to really scrutinize the legislative restrictions on freedom, so long as they are labeled safety-based ‘regulatory’ measures rather than criminal punishments,” she said. “Hopefully, though, as these regulations become more oppressive, that will change.”