Proposition 60 is one of those measures that might seem like a good idea until you actually read it.
Its basic premise is requiring adult film actors to wear condoms during sex. Not unreasonable. But what we really have here is the daft idea of giving a California porn czar the power to override the state attorney general.
Vote no. Really.
How bad is Prop 60? In a rare display of unity, California’s Democratic Party and Republican Party are opposed.
State and federal laws already protect adult performers, who are routinely tested for sexually transmitted diseases. There’s insufficient enforcement. But this measure could undermine ongoing efforts by the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) to improve regulation of the industry.
Prop 60 purports to fix everything, but as state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, notes, it actually could open performers to lawsuits, “fails to embrace the most current scientific research and could run counter to findings regarding more advanced approaches to protecting workers.”
All that’s bad, but here’s the worst of it:
Prop. 60 is the brainchild of Michael Weinstein, CEO of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. He’s often described as uncompromising and dictatorial, and let’s just say he brought both those qualities to Prop. 60.
Consider Section 10. The second sentence reads: “The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare the proponent of this Act (meaning Weinstein, himself) has a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity.”