It’s election season, and in California that means lots of propositions to wade through. (There are 17 on the ballot this time around, which is a lot even for California.) I’ve spent around 2 full days reading through each proposition in detail, and here are my conclusions.
If you want to read through them yourself, you can find the state voter guide here.
The election is Tuesday, November 8th. Don’t forget to vote!
- My Approach
- Digression: Proponent Standing
- The Propositions
- Prop. 51: $9bn for School Facilities [YES]
- Prop. 52: Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program [YES]
- Prop. 53: Voter Approval for Bonds >= $2bn [NO]
- Prop. 54: 72-hour Notice for Legislation [NO]
- Prop. 55: Education/Healthcare Tax Extension [YES]
- Prop. 56: Cigarette and E-Cig. Tax [YES]
- Prop. 57: Increased Parole for Non-Violent Offenses [YES]
- Prop. 58: English Proficiency in Schools [YES]
- Prop. 59: Resolution to Reverse Citizens United [YES]
- Prop. 60: Condoms in Adult Films [NO]
- Prop. 61: State Prescription Drug Pricing [NO]
- Prop. 62: Repeal the Death Penalty [YES]
- Prop. 63: Stricter Firearm / Ammunition Laws [YES]
- Prop. 64: Marijuana Legalization [YES]
- Prop. 65: Charges for Plastic Bags [NO]
- Prop. 66: Streamlined Death Penalty [NO]
- Prop. 67: Plastic Bag Ban [YES]
For each proposition, I start with the official summary and analysis in the voter guide. The summary is prepared by the Attorney General (currently, Kamala Harris, who is also running for the US Senate in this election), and the analysis is prepared by the legislative analyst. Then I will read or skim the text of the bill, looking for details that may have been left out of the analysis.
Usually by this point, I’ve started to form an opinion. If it’s only a weak opinion, or if I’m still not sure, I’ll skim the pro and con arguments in the voter guide, starting with the argument leaning against my weak opinion (so if I’m leaning “Yes”, I’ll start with the “Opposed” opinion). The arguments on both sides are often pretty hyperbolic, so I always read them with skepticism and cross-check against the text of the bill. I also pay close attention to who has signed the pro and con arguments, and take their potential motivations into consideration.
Then I’ll go to the Internet, mostly for background information. I look for context and history; what happened in the past that affects the issue at play? Why is the proposition written the way it is? Who benefits from its passage?
For me to vote “Yes” on a proposition, it must have a very good chance of doing more public good than harm. I don’t have any preconceived notions about what ballot propositions are supposed to be, or whether a particular measure is truly a “weapon of last resort”. I just ask myself: will everyone be better off with or without this proposition?
This means I will vote “Yes” on things not in my personal best interest, if I have reason to believe the state as a whole will be better off. I try to keep my personal feelings out of my decision as much as possible, though they do creep in at times, particularly around issues of strong moral concern (the death penalty is one example).
For the most part, I just want to know: who benefits, and how?
Speaking of “who benefits”, there’s an interesting trend in the text of propositions this year that I want to draw your attention to.
First, some history: In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which eliminated marriage rights for same-sex couples. In 2013, it was challenged in court, and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend it before the Supreme Court. The proponents of the original ballot proposition asked to step in, but they did not have standing, and were unable to defend the measure; the ruling that overturned Proposition 8 was left in place.
What does this have to do with ballot propositions in 2016? Some of them are starting to sprout language like this, taken from Proposition 55:
SEC. 7. Proponent Standing.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the state, government agency, or any of its officials fail to defend the constitutionality of this measure, following its approval by the voters, any other government employer, the proponent, or in his or her absence, any citizen of this state shall have the authority to intervene in any court action challenging the constitutionality of this measure for the purpose of defending its constitutionality, whether such action is in trial court, on appeal, or on discretionary review by the Supreme Court of California or the Supreme Court of the United States. The fees and costs of defending the action shall be a charge on funds appropriated to the Attorney General, which shall be satisfied promptly.
In short: if the Attorney General chooses not to defend the law, anyone can step in to defend it, and the Attorney General must pick up the tab.
The only reason I can think of for including such language is that the proponents are trying to protect what must be a strong, vested interest in this ballot measure.
This isn’t even the most egregious example, though; let’s take a look at Proposition 60:
SEC. 7. Proponent Accountability.
The people of the State of California hereby declare that the proponent of this Act should be held civilly liable in the event this Act is struck down, after passage, in whole or in part, by a court for being constitutionally or statutorily impermissible. Such a constitutionally or statutorily impermissible initiative is a misuse of taxpayer funds and electoral resources and the Act’s proponent, as the drafter of the Act, must be held accountable for such an occurrence.
In the event this Act, after passage, is struck down in court, in whole or in part, as unconstitutional or statutorily invalid, and all avenues for appealing and overturning the court decision have been exhausted, the proponent shall pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the General Fund of the State of California for failure to draft a wholly constitutionally or statutorily permissible initiative law. No party or entity may waive this civil penalty.
Wow. So the proponents will be held accountable if Proposition 60 is found invalid. Why would they add such a clause?
SEC. 10. Legal Defense.
The people of the State of California desire that the Act, if approved by the voters, and thereafter challenged in court, be defended by the State of California. The people of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the proponent of this Act has a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity. In the event the Attorney General fails to defend this Act; or the Attorney General fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality or statutory permissibility of this Act, in whole or in part, in any court, the Act’s proponent shall be entitled to assert his direct and personal stake by defending the Act’s validity in any court and shall be empowered by the citizens through this Act to act as an agent of the citizens of the State of California subject to the following conditions: (1) the proponent shall not be considered an “at-will” employee of the State of California, but the Legislature shall have the authority to remove the proponent from his agency role by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature when “good cause” exists to do so, as that term is defined by California case law; (2) the proponent shall take the Oath of Office under Section 3 of Article XX of the California Constitution, as an employee of the State of California; (3) the proponent shall be subject to all fiduciary, ethical, and legal duties prescribed by law; and (4) the proponent shall be indemnified by the State of California for only reasonable expenses and other losses incurred by the proponent, as agent, in defending the validity of the challenged Act. The rate of indemnification shall be no more than the amount it would cost the State to perform the defense itself.
Oh. Just in case there was any doubt as to the authors’ standing, they are now (a) on the hook for financial damages (establishing a tangible interest in the law itself), and (b) legally appointed as an agent of the state, just to defend the Proposition, should the Attorney General refuse to defend it.
Whoever wants Proposition 60 to pass, must want it bad. But more on that later.
These clauses come in three forms; we’ve looked at two of them here. The third form is the narrowest; it requires the Attorney General to appoint independent counsel to defend the law, and appropriates funds from the General Fund (not the AG’s office) to pay for it. However, it does not allow proponents to choose their own counsel, or to be involved in the defense. I won’t go into it further here.
Overall, 7 out of 17 ballot propositions have some variation of a “Proponent Standing” clause. Any time I see such a clause, I start to think: “special interest”. How do the authors benefit so much from these propositions that they’re willing to put their own time and money on the line to defend them? If I can’t answer that question, it’s a good sign there’s something I’m missing.
$9 billion is a very big number, but it’s not so big relative to the state budget. According to the Overview of State Bond Debt published in the Voter Guide, Proposition 51 would add about 0.33% to the state’s debt-service ratio—that is, the percentage of the General Fund revenue spent on paying back bonds.
The state’s debt-service ratio currently stands at about 5% today. By contrast, the average American household has a debt-service ratio of about 10-12% over the last 30 years, factoring in mortgages, car payments, credit-card debt, student loans, etc. And while this is by no means an apples-to-apples comparison, I think it’s important to illustrate that the state is not shouldering a huge debt obligation right now.
So what does $9 billion get our school system? We get new and upgraded K-12 school facilities, community college facilities, and charter and vocational school facilities. These are investments which will have a positive impact for a generation to come. An additional 0.33% in debt costs seems like a small price to pay. I’m voting Yes.
This extends a legislative hack that was put in place to get increased federal grant money for hospitals. Figure 1 of the analysis in the Voter Guide has a nice breakdown of how the hack works, but the gist is this:
- Hospitals pay a “quality assurance” fee to the state.
- The state splits this money between the General Fund and Medi-Cal.
- The portion that is paid to Medi-Cal is paid back to hospitals, but…
- Medi-Cal receives matching funds from the federal government for all the payments it’s making to hospitals, even though that money originally came from the hospitals themselves.
This means that hospitals receive a little more than double the money they spend on the quality assurance fee.
Making this hack permanent means that hospitals continue to receive additional money from federal grants that they otherwise would not. I can see no downside here, so I’m voting Yes.
This proposition would require statewide voter approval on bonds for any state-sponsored project if the total amount of bonds issued is greater than $2 billion.
For example: if Los Angeles wants to upgrade their highway system, and finance the construction through general obligation bonds and state grants, the entire state would have to vote on the bonds for this project.
California’s public infrastructure is crumbling, from the water system to highways to public transit. This adds an unnecessary barrier to critical infrastructure projects, presumably in an attempt to reduce spending. It also subjects local agencies to statewide referenda, forcing them to sell/market their projects to the entire state.
To continue the earlier example, there’s no reason that I, as a Bay Area resident, would need to vote on an LA highway project, paid for entirely by LA and existing state grant programs. I’m voting No.
This proposition would require every bill voted on by the Legislature to be posted online for 72 hours prior to voting. It would also require public meetings of the Legislature to be recorded and made freely available on the Internet within 24 hours, and to remain available for at least 20 years.
In principle, this sounds like a great idea; I don’t buy the opponents’ argument that the 72-hour hold would increase meddling by special interests. To the contrary, I think a mandatory public comment period is important for significant legislation, and would allow the general public more opportunity to weigh in.
But there are a couple practical problems that outweigh the benefits:
- This would hamstring the Legislature; many bills considered and passed are not significant and really don’t require the extra delay; they are so uncontroversial that it would simply be a waste of time.
- More significantly, it would remove restrictions on the use of recordings of the Legislature’s public meetings. Anyone would be able to use these recordings for any purpose, even political purposes. I believe this would stifle healthy debate and discussion, because anyone addressing the Legislature would have to be extremely mindful of their words, lest their opponent take something they said and use it out of context in a political setting.
This last problem is, in my opinion, a fatal flaw. Even though I support legislative transparency, I’m voting No.
This is another education-revenue bill, which would extend the existing increase in income tax on anyone making over $250,000. The money from the increased tax will be split slightly differently, however, amongst K-12 schools, community colleges, and healthcare programs.
This also seems like a no-brainer; the benefits of improved education and healthcare are obvious. I also believe that, to the extent possible, we should be paying for government services through progressive taxes like the income tax, and not through regressive taxes like the sales tax.
Income inequality is one of the defining issues of our time. Making the income tax more progressive helps to reduce income inequality ever so slightly, and the revenue is going to a good cause. Overall, this tax benefits way more people than it harms. I’m voting Yes.
This proposition increases the tax on regular cigarettes, and adds a new tax on electronic cigarettes. Money raised by the tax will go to healthcare programs such as tobacco use prevention and research, and law enforcement.
While I support an individual’s right to do what they please with their body, tobacco is a public health hazard; not only is it dangerous to the person using it, it’s also dangerous to anyone around them, through second-hand smoke. This is settled science; it has been established through decades of research. So I feel the state has a compelling interest in trying to discourage its use.
(Full disclosure: I also have a personal interest in discouraging its use, since I find it to be a nuisance; the smell is extremely offputting, and it both lingers and spreads across a wide area. I don’t appreciate the lung damage, either.)
The big downside to this measure is its regressive nature; an increased tobacco tax would disproportionately affect minority and low-income people, since they smoke at increased rates compared to other demographics.
Overall, I think “use it but tax it” strikes the right balance between personal autonomy—the right to control one’s own body—and the corresponding public health risk that comes with it. I also believe that more resources should be available for people who want to quit; tobacco is extremely addictive and it’s hard to quit on your own. I’m voting Yes.
Many people are serving prison time for low-level offenses, such as drug possession and petty theft. They’re serving time in over-crowded, sub-standard prisons, and they are not getting the help they need to stay out of prison once their sentences are complete.
California’s prison system is so overcrowded, in fact, that in 2009, a panel of federal judges ordered the state to take steps to reduce overcrowding within 2 years. That order was upheld 4-5 by the Supreme Court in 2011. The Supreme Court ruling took note of the almost 2-to-1 ratio of prisoners to available cell beds, and stated:
… For years the medical and mental health care provided by California’s prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and has failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs. Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result. Over the whole course of years during which this litigation has been pending, no other remedies have been found to be sufficient. Efforts to remedy the violation have been frustrated by severe overcrowding in California’s prison system. Short term gains in the provision of care have been eroded by the long-term effects of severe and pervasive overcrowding.
Proposition 57 would create additional opportunities for parole consideration for non-violent felonies, and award credits for rehabilitation, education, and good behavior. It also requires juvenile court judges, not prosecutors, to decide if a juvenile should be charged as an adult or as a minor.
In short, Proposition 57 would help to ease unconstitutional over-crowding in the prison system, by providing non-violent offenders additional incentive to participate in rehabilitation and education programs, and to be on their best behavior.
Prop. 57 is by no means a complete fix. It does nothing to provide additional rehab or training programs, or to increase their quality. Nor does it do anything to change the fact that many low-level drug convictions translate to prison time, especially for minorities. But it does make the situation better than what it is now.
Additionally, I’m confident that Prop. 57 balances public-safety concerns appropriately. It does not authorize the wholesale release of inmates. While it does provide additional avenues for inmates to reduce their sentences, it does so on a case-by-case basis through existing, well-established review processes such as parole hearings.
Prop. 57 appropriately balances public-safety concerns with the need to treat inmates with dignity and respect. I’m voting Yes.
In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, which required public school classes to be taught almost entirely in English, eliminating bilingual classes in most schools. Proposition 58 would repeal most of Prop. 227, restoring the option of bilingual education, subject to a few conditions:
- School districts must continue to offer mostly-English education for non-English-speaking (or “English-learner”) students that would prefer to be immersed in English.
- School districts must provide specific English-learner programs if enough parents request that program.
- School districts must get yearly feedback from parents on their bilingual and English-only programs for English-learner students.
Not having children, I don’t have a strong opinion on this. However, I do believe, as a general rule, that schools and school districts need to be able to adapt to local needs, and those needs may differ from community to community. Repealing Prop. 227 also provides us with an opportunity to experiment with different English-learner programs to see what works best in a given community.
Because of the potential for greater educational flexibility, I’m voting Yes.
The opponents of this bill are correct—it makes no substantive policy change whatsoever.
What it does do, however, is send a clear message: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had a disastrous effect on our campaign-finance system, allowing special interests to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.
I couldn’t agree more. I’m voting Yes.
On its face, Proposition 60 seems like a good thing—it’s important to play safe, and requiring adult-film performers to use condoms and get tested and vaccinated on a regular basis is a great way to reduce STI infections and model best practices for anyone having sex. Proposition 60 requires all of those things, and it imposes additional licensing and record-keeping requirements on film producers.
But there are two fatal flaws in this proposed law: any California resident can sue to enforce it, and it applies to anyone who “produces” an adult film, even casual/amateur films like that video of you and your husband you shot on your iPhone last week. (You know the one… ;) )
The end result: it becomes extremely risky, legally speaking, to produce any pornography at all unless you (a) obtain a license and pay a fee, (b) keep meticulous records for everyone in the video, including where and when the video was made, and the name and contact information for anyone “producing” the video, and (c) provide all of this information to the state on demand.
Oh, and forget about not using condoms in your video, even if you’re married, monogamous and fluid-bonded.
In short, the authors appear to be trying to legislate pornography out of existence, by making it so difficult to make such a film that most people won’t bother (or will do so illegally).
I have a problem with this on a free-speech level, as well as a personal-autonomy level. I don’t believe the state has any business regulating what an individual does with their body, including whether and how they choose to share it with other consenting adults.
Even if you think that porn shouldn’t exist, there’s good reason to believe this measure won’t be effective—it will simply cause most production to move out of state, where Proposition 60 wouldn’t apply. Los Angeles County enacted a similar measure in 2012, and since then, adult-film production has largely moved to other counties or Nevada.
In short, Proposition 60 won’t accomplish its stated purpose, and will instead criminalize a wide range of expression and activity that I believe to be protected free speech / free association, and a deeply-personal choice to boot. I’m voting No.
Proposition 61 would limit the amount that state agencies pay for prescription drugs, by requiring them to pay no more than what the US Department of Veterans Affairs pays. This includes any situation where the state is ultimately paying for the drug (e.g. prescription co-pays, where the consumer is making the purchase), except managed-care programs funded through Medi-Cal.
There are a few things I don’t understand about this law, which make me suspicious: first, I don’t understand why managed-care programs are exempt. And second, I don’t know why the proponents care enough about this law to insert a Proponent Standing clause.
Ultimately, I don’t need to reach these questions, however, because I don’t feel that Prop. 61 will result in long-term savings.
It’s true that the VA can negotiate larger volume discounts from drug manufacturers than the state could on its own. So in the short term, tying (some) state drug prices to the VA’s prices would cause the state prices to drop. But I believe we will wind up with overall higher prices and reduced drug availability over the long term.
The reason is simple: there’s nothing in Prop. 61 to limit the profits of drug manufacturers. All businesses employ a variety of pricing strategies designed ultimately to drive up revenue, but these strategies generally fall into one of two buckets: sell a lot for a small profit, by driving up supply and volume; or sell a little at a huge profit, by driving up demand and constraining volume (thereby driving up price).
Pharmaceutical companies are no different. They may decide to do nothing at all—accepting slightly reduced profit margins for increased goodwill (and hopefully volume) in California. Or they may increase the street price paid by the VA to make up for the reduced profit in California. For rare drugs, they might decide selling in California isn’t worth the money, and take the drug off the market entirely. Or they might do something else altogether.
Whatever the drug companies do, we can be sure of this: it will serve the interests of their shareholders, not the public. If we leave them an option to improve their profit margin, they will take it, at consumers’ and governments’ expense. So while I agree that drug prices (and pharmaceutical profit margins) are way too high, I don’t believe Prop. 61 can sustainably address that problem.
I would like to see legislation that directly limits pharmaceutical industry profit margins, while leaving enough room or public support for companies to invest in new drug development (itself a very risky endeavour). Prop. 61 is not that legislation, so I’m voting No.
Like every human institution, the justice system is fallible. This means we will sometimes convict an innocent person, and if that innocent person is convicted of a gravely serious felony, like first-degree murder, they may be subject to the death penalty.
Execution is irreversible, and I’m not comfortable with the idea that even one innocent person might be executed as a result of a mistaken jury verdict. Once someone is dead, there’s no going back—no chance to make up for even one iota of the wrongful punishment they had to endure.
Even if you have confidence in the justice system, there’s still the matter of cost—it’s significantly more expensive to house someone on death row than it is to carry out a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Why spend the money on the worst of the worst?
If you can ensure someone is no longer a danger to society by locking them up forever, and it’s cheaper to do that than it is to kill them, the only remaining justification for the death penalty is revenge. Revenge is a personal feeling; it’s not an external force or a moral imperative. It’s not a valid justification for anything external to oneself, let alone taking a life.
Whatever your moral position on the death penalty might be, it is costly and irreversible. I’m voting Yes.
America has a gun-violence problem — between 11,000 and 13,000 people are killed by gun homicide every year. There have been multiple studies, including a meta-study showing a correlation between gun ownership and deaths due to gun violence.
While correlation is not causation, the correlation is very strong. Many, but not all, of these deaths could likely be avoided by simply removing guns from the situation. If instant, lethal force is not an option, a volatile situation has more time to diffuse, or for outside help to arrive.
Prop. 63 would require a background check to be performed prior to selling ammunition, make owning or possessing a high-capacity magazine illegal, and tighten regulations related to gun theft. It’s an incremental step in the right drection, so I’m voting Yes.
Many of the same arguments that apply to the cigarette tax apply to marijuana as well. I support an individual’s right to do what they please with their body, but I recognize the public-health concerns that go with it.
For marijuana, the concerns are slightly different, but generally parallel those of alcohol. There is a long-term health risk associated with smoking anything (marijuana or tobacco), and there is a short-term health risk that someone might decide to drive while high.
While I am strongly concerned about the dangers of driving while high—absent some scientific studies, I am not convinced that doing so is any safer than driving while drunk—I don’t believe legalization is likely to have more than a temporary effect on the frequency of high driving.
Moreover, I believe marijuana’s current status as an illegal drug has made a huge negative impact; people (especially minorities) are being prosecuted for the “crime” of addiction. But addiction is first and foremost a health concern, and it should be treated as such. People who are addicted are in a situation that has escaped their control, and they need help, not punishment.
The War on Drugs has failed; it has put many people—especially minorities—in overcrowded prisons without addressing the underlying problem of addiction. It has, instead, taken the problem and made it worse by removing much of the community support that might otherwise be available to those convicted of drug offenses.
Marijuana is a public health concern, or even a public health benefit (especially to those who use it for pain and anxiety management). But it does not automatically make its users a danger to society. It should therefore be taxed and regulated, not illegal. I’m voting Yes.
Prop. 65 redirects the “plastic-bag fee” charged by grocery stores to environmental causes. Due to conflicts with Prop. 67 (the plastic bag ban), it would need more “Yes” votes than Prop. 67 to actually pass. There is also a chance that if Prop. 65 passes, it would nullify Prop. 67 (depending on the courts’ interpretation).
Effectively, voters have to choose between Prop. 65, which does not ban plastic bags but does require fees collected for their use to go to environmental causes, and Prop. 67, which bans plastic bags entirely.
I believe it’s more important to ban plastic bags entirely—more on that later—than it is to collect fees on their use. So I’m voting No.
As I mentioned when discussing Prop. 62, the justice system is fallible. Over time, we have added more and more checks and safeguards into the system to ensure the death penalty is warranted. Prop. 66 would remove or limit many of those safeguards.
Yes, those safeguards are extremely expensive. But without them, we run an even greater risk of killing an innocent person, and that’s a risk I’m not comfortable with.
Death is irreversible; life in prison isn’t. I’m voting No.
Prop. 67 prohibits grocery stores from providing single-use plastic bags. Instead, stores would have to allow customers to bring their own multi-use bags, or buy recycled paper bags for at least 10 cents per bag.
Single-use plastic bags pose an environmental risk; they are difficult to recycle, and often end up in landfills where they act as barriers to natural bio-degredation processes. They are especially problematic when they end up in waterways, where marine life can ingest them.
I already live in a county where single-use plastic bags are outlawed. Taking a reusable bag to the grocery store poses only a slight inconvenience, and reduces the amount of waste I produce. Any reduction—even a small one—is a good thing. I’m voting Yes.
|||Similar clauses appear in propositions 57 and 63.|
|||I can’t think of any other case where the state must pay to support the specific actions of a private citizen. The closest analogy I can come up with is an entitlement program like Medicare or unemployment insurance. But in both of those cases, the state is paying to support a person because of something that happened to them (e.g. a health issue), and not as a direct result of a decision they made.|
|||A similar clause appears in proposition 61.|
|||The third clause type appears in propositions 53 and 65, under the section titled “Legal Defense”.|
Bonds can be guaranteed (or “secured”) in different ways. A revenue bond is a bond that paid back using money collected from users of the project the bond is funding. For example, you could sell bonds to replace a bridge, and then pay those bonds back by charging users of the bridge a toll.
A general obligation bond is a bond that is NOT paid-for by the project it is financing. General obligation bonds are paid out of the state’s General Fund.
|||This tax was put in place by Proposition 30 in 2012, which increases the marginal income tax rate by 1-3% for anyone making $260,000 or more. The extra revenue is spent exclusively on education. It will expire at the end of 2018.|
|||(1, 2) |
A progressive tax is one that disproportionately affects people with higher incomes. The income tax is one such example, since it taxes higher income brackets at higher tax rates.
A regressive tax does the opposite; it affects low-income people more than high-income people. The sales tax is a good example; since it is a flat, consumption-based tax, it disproportionately affects low-income people. This is because they have less money to spend on the same basic necessities. Even though they pay the same dollar value in sales tax as a high-income person would, that dollar value represents a larger percentage of the low-income person’s income.
|||You can find summary and briefing information here, and the full text of the decision here.|
It should also be noted that some of the requirements in Proposition 60 duplicate existing county and state laws. For example, Cal/OSHA already requires employers to provide, and employees to use, personal protective equipment (PPE) when dealing with hazardous or infectious substances; this includes condom use during sex. [source: Legislative Analysis of Prop. 60, in the Voter Guide.]
Additionally, as of 2012, Los Angeles County specifically requires the use of condoms in adult films, due to the passage of Measure B.
|||“Street Price” here refers to the final price that is actually paid, after discounts, incentives, etc. are applied, but before taxes or third-party fees.|