Welfare drug testing law’s future in question

  As the first months since the enactment of the welfare drug testing bill draw to a close, preliminary data show a staunch contrast between the promised results and reality, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. With the state’s budget in mind and the constitutionality of the legislation in question, the future of the law seems bleak.

  House Bill 353, signed into law by Governor Rick Scott last May, requires welfare recipients to submit samples and pay out of pocket for drug testing before collecting cash benefits. Those who test positive receive a ban on Temporary Assistance for six months, and after a second positive result, the ban  is for three years. During Governor Scott’s early defense of the bill, he was quoted as saying, “Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare.” A statement now found inconsistent with the newly publicized results.

  Since the enforcement of the order in early July, the Department of Children and Families has reported a 96 percent pass rate for the estimated 1,500 applicants tested monthly, with only 2 percent testing positive, and 2 percent of the applicants refusing to be tested. With the state committed to reimbursing the majority with the full cost of the testing, Floridians can expect a state expense of about  $30,000 a month. Alongside are the projected costs of operation (which are currently unknown). This leaves the savings procured from the bill at an insignificant, if not nonexistent degree. These are diminished further by the costs that will be incurred by legal action taken against the bill.

  The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit challenging the bill’s constitutionality on behalf of a Navy veteran who was denied assistance because of his refusal to take the test. Referencing the 4th amendment and citizen’s rights against unlawful search and seizure, the likelihood of a successful lawsuit is probable. Governor Scott recently suspended a planned policy requiring state workers to also provide drug samples after the ACLU filed a similar suit in Federal Court. UCLA professor of law Adam Winkler predicts that the bill is “almost certain to be struck down in court,”  citing two comparable laws from Michigan and Oregon that were repealed on the basis of a constitutional violation. (Marchwinski v. Howard, Lanier v. City of Woodburn). If the law is repealled, Floridians may be on the hook for more than the price of just drug tests.