California Proposition 60, Condoms in Pornographic Films (2016)

California Proposition 60
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Adult entertainment
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

Proposition 60, the Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.^[1] It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups.

A "no" vote opposed this measure requiring the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films.

Election results[edit]

Proposition 60
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		7,146,039	53.67%
Yes		6,168,388	46.33%

Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview[edit]

Pornographic film regulations in California[edit]

California was, at the time of this measure, a leading producer of pornographic films, with most production occurring in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requires condom use during sex in pornographic films. However, Cal/OSHA generally enforces this requirement in response to complaints.^[2] In November 2012, Los Angeles approved Measure B, which required pornography actors to wear condoms on set.

Initiative design[edit]

Proposition 60 would have required adult film producers to provide condoms and ensure that performers use them during performances in which "performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis." While condoms would have not been needed to be visible in films distributed to consumers, producers would have needed to prove that condoms were used. The costs of performers' workplace-related medical examinations, sexually-transmitted infections (STI) tests, and STI vaccines would have been covered by film producers under the measure. Adult film producers would have been required to be licensed by Cal/OSHA every two years. Furthermore, producers would have been required to contact Cal/OSHA whenever they make an adult film.^[2]

State of the ballot measure campaigns[edit]

For Adult Industry Responsibility (FAIR), the campaign supporting the initiative, outraised opponents nine-to-one. Supporters raised $5 million, while their opponents, organized as the Coalition Against Worker Harassment, received $556,169. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation was the sole contributor to FAIR. Before the election, polls indicated that support for Proposition 60 was around 53 percent. Both the California Democratic Party and California Republican Party opposed the measure.

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was as follows:^[2]

“

Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.[3]

”

Ballot summary[edit]

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:^[2]

“

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 of adult films to obtain state health license, 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 film involved, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers. Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations.[3]

”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:^[2]

“

Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.[3]

”

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 60 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact statement[edit]

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars per year. Increased state costs that could exceed $1 million annually to license and regulate adult film production and to enforce workplace health and safety rules. These costs would be offset to some extent by new fee revenue.[3]

”

Full text[edit]

The full text of the initiative measure is available here.

Background[edit]

Los Angeles Measure B[edit]

See also: Los Angeles Porn Actors Required to Wear Condoms Act, Measure B (November 2012)

In November 2012, Los Angeles approved Measure B, which required pornography actors to wear condoms on set. The measure also required producers of adult films to pay an annual fee to Los Angeles County's Department of Public Health. Vivid Entertainment, a pornography firm, initiated a lawsuit in an attempt to get Measure B overturned. Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, pornography workers, joined as plaintiffs. Paul Cambria, the plaintiffs' attorney, viewed the initiative as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the measure imposed an unconstitutional restraint on workers' freedom of expression.^[4] In August 2013, Judge Dean Pregerson upheld the law as constitutional and concluded the measure would, in fact, help alleviate health issues.^[5] In December 2015, California's Fair Political Practices Commission alleged that the measure opposition group, the No on Measure B committee, received $343,000 from pornography organizations with ties to Luxembourg and Cyprus—a violation of the state ban on financial contributions from foreign principals. The state ethics agency announced on December 7, 2015, that the committee agreed to pay $61,500 in fines for violating campaign finance laws.^[6]

Support[edit]

For Adult Industry Responsibility (FAIR), also known as Yes on 60, led the campaign in support of Proposition 60.^[7]

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, was the chief proponent of Proposition 60.^[1]

Supporters[edit]

Parties[edit]

• California Peace and Freedom Party^[8]
• Santa Monica Democratic Club^[9]

Organizations[edit]

• AIDS Healthcare Foundation^[10]
• American Sexual Health Association
• California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses
• California Communities United Institute
• Beyond AIDS
• California Academy of Preventive Medicine
• Southern California Coalition of Occupational Healthy and Safety
• AltaMed Action Fund State PAC

Note: The Yes on 60 campaign website listed endorsements of Proposition 60 and supporters of condom use in porn. The latter group does not necessarily support the initiative.

Arguments[edit]

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 60:^[2]

• The proposition would hold pornographers accountable for work safety and health, specifically by closing loopholes and improving enforcement of existing law.
• The proposition would only hold adult film producers, directors, and agents accountable, not adult performers.
• The proposition would reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases for adult performers and the larger community.
• The proposition would save taxpayer money in that taxpayers would have to pay for less treatments for sexually transmitted diseases and other related diseases.

Official arguments[edit]

Cynthia Davis, M.P.H., board chair of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Gary A. Richwald, M.D., M.P.H., former director of Los Angeles County Sexually Transmitted Disease Program, and Derrick Burts, an HIV-positive former adult film worker wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 60 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:^[2]

Nobody should have to risk their health in order to keep their job! A YES vote for Prop 60 is a vote to protect California adult film workers from disease, Porn producers refuse to provide a safe workplace for their performers. As a result, thousands of workers have been exposed to serious and life-threatening diseases. It is time to hold the pornographers accountable for worker safety and health in California's adult film industry. Since 1992, the law has required condom use in all adult films produced in California. According to Cal/OSHA, "Condoms are required to protect adult film workers from exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections." Prop 60 closes loopholes in the existing law and improves enforcement so pornographers can more readily be held accountable for the same workplace protection law that applies to every other California industry. Prop 60 only holds adult film producers, directors, and agents accountable—not adult film performers. The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and other major medical and public health institutions support the use of condoms in adult films. But pornographers blatantly ignore the law. They complain condom use in their films will hurt their profits. They fire and blacklist adult film performers who want to protect themselves with condoms. When pornographers ignore the law, they expose their workers to HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis, and human papillomavirus (HPV). Scientific studies show adult film performers are far more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases than the general population. Thousands of cases of diseases—which can spread to the larger community—have been documented within the adult film industry in recent years. Pornographers say adult film performers are tested for disease. But testing (which the workers must pay for!) is inadequate. It does not effectively identify many sexually transmitted diseases in a timely manner. Condoms provide important additional protections. Vote YES on Prop 60 for worker safety! We all pay the price because pornographers refuse to play by the rules. The lifetime cost to treat HIV is nearly half a million dollars per person. This industry has cost California taxpayers an estimated $10 million in HIV treatment expenses alone. In addition, taxpayers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to treat related diseases. The need to strengthen existing law is particularly urgent now because the adult film industry is struggling to make profits. As a result, pornographers are more likely than ever to resist condom use. Prop 60 provides health officials with the enforcement tools they need to help ensure the law is enforced and adult film workers are adequately protected. Pornographers have taken advantage of young working women and men for too long. Pornographers must not be allowed to continue to violate the law that protects these California workers. This is about fairness and responsibility. Visit FAIR4CA.org for more information. VOTE YES ON PROP 60!

Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following video advertisements were produced by For Adult Industry Responsibility:^[11]

A Yes on Proposition 60 ad featuring Cameron Adams

A Yes on Proposition 60 ad featuring Derrick Burts

Opposition[edit]

Coalition Against Worker Harassment, also known as No on Prop. 60, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 60.^[12]

Opponents[edit]

Officials[edit]

• U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)^[13]
• Sen. Mark Leno (D-11)
• San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim (D)
• San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener (D)^[14]

Former officials[edit]

• Asm. Tim Donnelly (R-33)

Parties[edit]

California Democratic Party[15] California Republican Party California Libertarian Party[16] Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[17] Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club San Francisco Democratic Party Los Angeles County Democratic Party[18] San Mateo County Democrats San Francisco Young Democrats Los Angeles County Young Democrats Sonoma County Democratic Party El Dorado County Republican Party San Francisco Green Party San Francisco for Democracy Fresno County Republican Party San Francisco Latino Democratic Club Santa Clara County Democratic Party San Francisco Women’s Political Committee Portero Hill Democratic Club Richmond District Democratic Club Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club Miracle Mile Democratic Club East Bay Young Democrats Potrero Hill Democratic Club Butte County Democratic Party Ventura County Democrats California Republican Assembly Sacramento County Republican Party Republican Party Los Angeles County Monterey County Republican Party SF Bernicrats Bernal Heights Democratic Club District 5 Democratic Club District 8 Democratic Club West Hollywood Beverly Hills Democratic Club Santa Clara Democratic Party San Diego Republican Party The El Cerrito Democratic Club San Diego County Democratic Party East Area Progressive Democrats West LA Democratic Club Orange County Democratic Club Pacific Palisades Democratic Club San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party Democratic Party of Sacramento County Placer County Democratic Party Del Norte County Democratic Central Committee Democratic Women of the Desert East Area Progressive Democrats Fresno Stonewall Democrats SD Democrats for Equality Republicans of River City FDR Democratic Club New Avenues Democratic Club

Organizations[edit]

Businesses[edit]

Individuals[edit]

• Dan Savage^[21]
• Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones^[22]

Arguments[edit]

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 60:^[2]

• The proposition language is poorly drafted.
• The proposition would lead to many lawsuits that could threaten the safety of adult performers.
• The proposition would violate worker privacy.
• The proposition would instate the proponent as a state employee who would review pornographic films for infractions, and only legislators would be able to vote the proponent out of the position if necessary.
• The proposition would cost taxpayers millions of dollars unnecessarily.

Official arguments[edit]

Sen. Mark Leno (D-11), Jay Gladstein, an M.D. specializing in internal medicine and infectious disease, and Jessica Yasukochi, vice president of the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, wrote the official argument in opposition to Proposition 60 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:^[2]

VOTE NO ON PROP 60: This is what happens when one special interest group has access to millions of dollars to fund a political campaign. This 13-page measure is so poorly drafted it is the only initiative this year OPPOSED by the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and the CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY. Even the California Libertarian Party opposes Prop 60. The proponent wants you to believe it is about worker safety. However, Prop 60 is OPPOSED by the ONLY independent all adult film performer organization in the state, with hundreds of dues paying members. In a letter to the California Secretary of State, the President of the Adult Film Advocacy Committee Chanel Preston stated the initiative is dangerous for the health and safety of performers. Prop 60 is also OPPOSED by many civil rights and public health organizations, including Equality California, the Transgender Law Center, AIDS Project Los Angeles, the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Prop 60 is opposed by business leaders such as the Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA). The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "tens of millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers. The initiative creates a new private right of action authorizing the Proponent AND all 38 MILLION RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA to file lawsuits directly against adult film performers, on-set crew, and even cable and satellite television companies who distribute the films. Even injured performers can be sued directly- by anyone. No other worker in California can be sued this way. VOTE NO ON PROP 60 HERE ARE THE FACTS: According to California's nonpartisan fiscal advisor Prop 60 could cost taxpayers "TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" each year; money that could be spent on education, health care, libraries, police and fire services. The ultimate trial lawyer ballot measure, Prop 60 gives EVERY Californian the right to sue adult film performers, including LGBT performers, on-set workers, and even cable and satellite television companies. The initiative's presumption of liability could apply to every adult film on cable television today. Prop 60 could force adult film performers to publicly disclose private information, including their legal names and HOME ADDRESSES. State employees will have to "review" adult films. The named proponent is authorized to be "sworn in" as a state employee and he cannot be fired; only the Legislature can VOTE him out of the job. Married couples who film in their own homes can be sued. Prop 60 will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, violate worker privacy, and even make the Proponent a state employee — paid for by taxpayers like you. That's why you should join performers, business leaders, the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY and CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY and VOTE NO ON PROP 60.

Tactics and strategies[edit]

DCCC[edit]

The Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) that oversees San Francisco’s Democratic Party voted to urge the state's Democratic Party to oppose this initiative, which the state's central committee ultimately did. This position by the San Francisco Democratic Party was not official until the state council also voted to oppose Proposition 60, as local Democratic committees cannot officially hold a position on a statewide ballot measure until the state party decides on a position or votes not to take an official position. Local committee member Matt Dorsey argued that the endorsement by San Francisco's party was significant, saying, “San Francisco is a globally-recognized leader on HIV/AIDS issues. This is a very strong statement from San Francisco’s Democratic Party, and I hope it will send an influential message to the California Democratic Party, and to voters statewide.”^[23]

Protest against Proposition 60[edit]

On October 17, 2016, about 100 pornographic actors and workers protested outside of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation headquarters in Los Angeles.^[24][25] On October 18, multiple pornographic websites, including Vivid Entertainment Group, Evil Angel, Kink, Pink & White Productions, and Treasure Island Media, blocked California consumers from viewing their content in protest to Proposition 60. Consumers of these websites were met with an advertisement asking them to vote against the ballot initiative.^[26]

Campaign advertisements[edit]

Stop Prop 60 - Vote No

Stop Prop 60 - Vote No

Vota No en la Proposición 60

Campaign finance[edit]

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$5,047,809.19
Opposition:	$556,169.22

As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign for this initiative raised $5,047,809.19, more than nine times what the opposition campaign had raised.^[27][28]

Support[edit]

One hundred percent of the total contributions in support of this initiative were in-state donations provided by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.^[27]

As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support this initiative. The total amount raised and expended were current as of February 1, 2017.^[27][29][30]

Ballot measure committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
YES ON PROP 60, FOR ADULT INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY (FAIR) COMMITTEE, WITH MAJOR FUNDING BY AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION	$5,047,809.19	$5,045,799.01
Total	$5,047,809.19	$5,045,799.01

As of February 1, 2017, the largest and only donor in support of this initiative was:^[27]

Donor	Amount
AIDS Healthcare Foundation	$5,047,809.19

Opposition[edit]

As of February 1, 2017, there was one PAC filed to oppose this initiative. The total contributions and expenditures listed below were current as of February 1, 2017.^[28]

Ballot measure committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
NO ON PROPOSITION 60, CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WORKER HARASSMENT, SPONSORED BY THE FREE SPEECH COALITION	$556,169.22	$603,390.12
Total	$556,169.22	$603,390.12

As of February 1, 2017, the top five largest donors in opposition to this initiative were:^[27]

Donor	Amount
Wicked Pictures	$44,000.00
Paper Street Media LLC	$43,493.00
Jeffrey Greenberg and Affiliated Entities	$40,000.00
John Stagliano and Affiliated Entities	$39,999.00
California Democratic Party	$30,448.10

Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials[edit]

Support[edit]

• The Bakersfield California: "The assumption that film producers will just pick up and leave California for a more regulatory-friendly state is bogus. California reportedly is the major producer of adult and pornographic films for one big reason: Most other states have laws restricting the industry. ... Proposition 60 clarifies the laws requiring adult or pornographic film actors must wear condoms or other safety devices. It is no different than requiring oilfield workers to wear hard hats, healthcare workers to wear latex gloves, or machinery operators to wear goggles. It’s workplace safety. Get over it."^[31]

Opposition[edit]

• East Bay Express: "Porn actors are already required to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases every fourteen days. There may be room for improvement in that oversight — you can never be too careful when it comes to deadly viruses — but going the Prop 60. route would detract from actual progress and worsen the overall safety of these sex workers."^[32]

• East Bay Times: "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."^[33]

• The Fresno Bee: "Proposition 60 arises from understandable frustration with that situation; its solution is essentially to litigate the adult film industry into compliance with condom rules. If voters were to approve the measure, and Cal/OSHA declined to pursue a reported violation within 21 days, the complainant could file a civil suit against anyone with a financial stake in the production and take a cut of the proceeds. But surely we aren’t so far gone that we want to offer bounties and invite frivolous lawsuits."^[34]

• Los Angeles Times: "The proposition would, in effect, make every Californian a potential condom cop by both mandating condom use and creating a private right of action so that any resident who spots a violation in a pornographic film shot in the state could sue and collect cash from the producers and purveyors if they prevail in court. This is an extreme approach — and demonstrably counterproductive. ... We support rules that make performers in adult films as safe as possible. That’s why we reject Proposition 60 and urge voters to do so as well."^[35]

• The Mercury News: "Proposition 60 is one of those measures that might seem like a good idea until you actually read it. But this measure could undermine ongoing efforts by the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) to improve regulation of the industry. Opponents of the proposition also argue that it will drive the industry underground or out of the state. That, we're not worried about. We won't shed any tears if an industry that's demeaning to women, addictive and emotionally damaging moves to another state. But crowning Weinstein king of porn with absolute power over all this? No way. Vote no on Proposition 60."^[36]

• Orange County Register: “Tellingly, the groups lining up to oppose the measure include both the California Democratic and Republican parties. The official argument against it is written by the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, which has seen the effects of the L.A. County porn condoms law on the San Fernando Valley-based industry and the many people whose livelihoods depend on it directly or indirectly.”^[37]

• The Record: “Vote no. The voting public really doesn’t need to get into the porn-film regulating business. Period.”^[38]

• The Sacramento Bee: “All workers should be protected, but that’s why we elect an attorney general and pay Cal/OSHA. Other proponents don’t write state jobs for themselves into their measures. We share Weinstein’s frustrations, but Proposition 60 is a legal overreach and too hardcore.”^[39]

• San Diego City Beat: "We’re all for safe sex. But this proposition is a front by 'activist' Michael Weinstein, who’s trying to drive the pornography business out of California."^[40]

• San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 60.^[41]

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "The measure also includes a provision unlike any other on a ballot measure that we can remember. If Proposition 60 passes, but the state refuses to defend its legality in a court challenge, Weinstein would automatically be hired and reimbursed by state taxpayers to provide such a defense."^[42]

• San Francisco Chronicle: "Easily the oddest measure on the California ballot is a proposal to require porn actors to use condoms while at work. It attempts to address a worthy subject of concern, but Prop. 60 underscores what’s wrong with trying to impose workplace health and safety regulations through the ballot box."^[43]

• San Francisco Examiner: "It should not be left to the voters to regulate workplace safety on porn shoots."^[44]

• San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 60.^[45]

• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The proposition is simply overkill: The multi-billion dollar porn industry employs only about 2,000 people in California."^[46]

• Ventura County Star: "We already have a law — although it is not adequately enforced — to meet the health issues addressed here. This proposal is overly broad and creates bad law under the guise of doing good. We recommend a no vote on Proposition 60."^[47]

• Victorville Daily Press: "However, the Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties all oppose Prop 60, as do a host of other groups. That bothers us. When was the last time you can remember Republicans and Democrats agreeing on just about anything? Yet on this they do? That's worrisome."^[48]

Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• A joint USC Dornsife - Los Angeles Times poll found 55 percent of respondents in support of Proposition 60 in early September 2016. The poll illustrated a large gender gap in positions, with 64 percent of women supporting the measure and 44 percent of men supporting it.^[49]
• In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 60. Support among respondents was 50 percent.^[50]

California Proposition 60 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016	50.0%	31.0%	19.0%	+/-7.0	622
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 9/1/2016 - 9/8/2016	55.0%	32.0%	13.0%	+/-2.0	1,909
AVERAGES	52.5%	31.5%	16%	+/-4.5	1,265.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Lawsuit[edit]

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Accuracy of opponents' arguments in the official voter guide
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: The section's claims about the fiscal impact of the measure and worker safety are misleading. Other claims are justifiable for inclusion in the guide.
Plaintiff(s): Derrick Burts	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and No on 60
Plaintiff argument: The "Arguments Against" section of the voter guide contains false and misleading statements	Defendant argument: The statements in the section are correct

  Source: Courthouse News Service

Former porn actor Derrick Burts field a lawsuit against opponents of Proposition 60 and Secretary of State Padilla, alleging false and misleading statements in the California official voter guide's "Arguments Against" section. Burts and the Yes on 60 campaign sought a writ of mandate to alter the opponents' arguments. Specifically, proponents took issue with the claim that their measure would cost the state "tens of millions in state and local tax revenue" and allow any Californian to sue any porn actor.^[51] Opponents of Proposition 60 argued that their statements were accurate.

Judge Timothy M. Frawley of the Sacramento Superior Court ruled in favor of Burts on multiple statements, including on fiscal effects of the measure and claims that it would weaken safety standards. However, Judge Frawley sided with opponents on the claim that Proposition 60 could create a "lawsuit bonanza."^[52]

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements

• Michael Weinstein submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on January 12, 2015.
• A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on March 18, 2015.
• 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• Organizers announced during a press conference on September 14, 2015, that they had collected 557,136 signatures—more than the number required to place the initiative on the November 2016 ballot. Election officials were given 30 days to verify the signatures.^[53]
• The measure was deemed eligible for the 2016 ballot on November 4, 2015, after county officials verified required signatures. It was qualified for the ballot 131 days before the election.^[54]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants, Inc. and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,409,273.68 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.85.

State profile[edit]

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Endorsers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Condoms Pornographic films Initiative Proposition 60. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Related measures[edit]

• Los Angeles Porn Actors Required to Wear Condoms Act, Measure B (November 2012) a

See also[edit]

• 2016 ballot measures
• California 2016 ballot propositions

External links[edit]

Basic information[edit]

• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0004
• California 2016 Voter Guide

Support[edit] Yes on 60 - For Adult Industry Responsibility website Yes on 60 - For Adult Industry Responsibility Facebook Yes on 60 - For Adult Industry Responsibility Twitter

Opposition[edit] No on Prop. 60 - Coalition Against Worker Harassment website No on Prop. 60 - Coalition Against Worker Harassment Facebook No on Prop. 60 - Coalition Against Worker Harassment Twitter

Other resources[edit]

• Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

Additional reading[edit]

• Los Angeles Times, "Backers of condoms-in-porn measure say it will qualify for 2016 ballot," July 18, 2015
• Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Calif. activists propose ballot measure on condom use in porn industry," February 19, 2015
• Hanford Sentinel, "Voters likely to decide condom law for porn industry," February 10, 2015

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2016 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin Political topics Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker External Relations: Andrew Heath • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jacob Hupp • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald Content Strategy: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Content Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy