UPDATED (Friday, 7 p.m.) — The Secretary of State’s office tonight issued a corrected list of proposition numbers for the legislative, initiative, and referendum measures. The "Safer Sex" initiative ballot item is now Proposition 59. The office originally published the measure this afternoon as Proposition 60.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced today that the Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act that is slated for the Nov. 8 ballot will be labeled Proposition 59.
On Friday, Eric Paul Leue, who leads the Californians Against Worker Harassment campaign as well as the Free Speech Coalition as executive director, blasted the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its president, Michael Weinstein, for not pulling the ballot initiative prior to yesterday’s deadline to possibly do so.
"[Proposition 59] is the only ballot measure opposed by both the Democratic and Republican Parties, in addition to both workers and business, as well as civil rights organizations," Leue told XBIZ. "It is perhaps the most poorly drafted proposition in California history."
Leue went on to say that there are so many problems with the initiative that voters are likely going to reject the measure.
"It is a lawsuit bonanza that is designed to harass workers and cost California tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and related education and public safety services," Leue said. "It is shameful that one man's obsession with porn plus his willingness to divert millions of dollars from a nonprofit organization to fund his personal ballot measure — it even gives him a state job paid for by taxpayers. Voters will not let this man become 'porn czar' of California.
"It is Michael Weinstein's last attempt, not to protect, but to persecute an already marginalized and stigmatized workforce. United, our industry — workers and businesses together, have continuously won against him. OSHA, AB 332, AB 640, AB1576 — this is the ultimate battle.
"He has destroyed his organizations reputation and credibility, abused funding, flouted his nonprofit's mission statement, and consequently destroyed his personal legacy," he said. "Our industry and our workers are thought-leaders and innovators. We are on the right side of history. Harassment is not a California value, and together, united, we will prevail."
Chanel Preston, president of the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC), told XBIZ that her organization was disappointed that Weinstein didn't pull the initiative destined for November's ballot.
"This initiative harms performers by giving harasser, stalkers, and people and organizations who wish to attack the adult film industry stake in our future," she said. "This initiative is one of the biggest threats performers have seen to their own safety and privacy, and to watch Michael Weinstein veil his ruthless efforts as a means to protect performers is disgusting.
"Just as the Republican and Democratic party has seen, as well as countless other organizations, we hope to see Californians recognize this initiative as a misguided, unsubstantial and ineffective route towards increasing performer safety."
Proposition 59, which will appear as the ninth measure on the General Election ballot in November, will include the following language (including bold text):
Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute. Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Requires producers to obtain state health license at beginning of filming and to post condom requirement at film sites. Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the violating film, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers. Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potentially reduced state and local tax revenue of millions or tens of millions of dollars per year. Likely state costs of a few million dollars annually to administer the law. Possible ongoing net costs or savings for state and local health and human services programs.
