LIES LIES - Porn industry threatened to leave Ca if B passed.[2]

[REVOTE THIS LIE]

I WILL PERSONALLY $$$$$$$$$$ PAY THE ACLU MILLIONS $ TO OVERTURN THIS LAW, RE-WRITE IT AND RE-VOTE IT IN 4 YEARS. OR DON'T RE-VOTE IT. CHANGE IT. WRITE IT OUT TO A VETO.

IF YOU KNEW HOW I CAN, YOU WOULD SHUT UP AROUND ME. I CAN. I , IF ANYONE IN THE INDUSTRY, I CAN. I AM MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD AND JESUS PUT TOGETHER AND EVEN THEY'RE TAXES DON'T COMPARE AND VIDID, STEVEN , STOP LYING. YOU NEVER FILED $500,000.00 INTO TAXES so yawn @ U FOOL

[Steven Hirschs my BEEATCH]

Path to the ballot
County

By mid-April 2012, supporters of the initiative said that they had collected about 235,000 signatures in Los Angeles County toward their goal of collecting 374,000 signatures by early June. 232,000 valid signatures is the minimum requirement to force the initiative to a vote on the November 6, 2012 ballot.
City

To earn a spot on the LA city-wide ballot, supporters of mandatory condom usage by actors in porn movies needed to collect a minimum of 41,138 qualifying signatures, or 15% of all votes cast in the last mayoral election. The deadline for submitting signatures was December 23, 2011.[1]

70,901 signatures were submitted by the deadline, and on December 23, election officials stated that a review of the signatures found that the minimum threshold for qualifying for the ballot had been achieved.[12]

It is unusual for a ballot initiative to qualify for the City of Los Angeles ballot. The last time one did qualify was in 1993.[1]

The City of Los Angeles subsequently filed a lawsuit with the aim of keeping the initiative off their ballot. They contended that according to California law, only the state has the authority to regulate condom usage and that therefore, a city such as Los Angeles is not allowed to enact its own law on the subject of condoms.[7]

The complaint said in part:

"Pre-election, judicial review of whether the city is preempted from presenting to the voters the measure submitted by defendants serves the public interest because a post-election judicial determination that the measure is preempted by state law voters undermines public trust in the petition process. Furthermore, a post-election determination that a measure is patently illegal would undermine the public trust in the government institutions and elected officials who play a role in the qualification measures for the ballot. A post-election determination that a measure is patently illegal undermines the credibility of the elections process in general, which is amongst our most treasured and essential democratic institution.

A post-election judicial determination that an initiative is illegal would also waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money incurred in the process of preparing such initiative for the ballot."[7]

According to the legal theory advanced in the lawsuit, only the state agency Cal/OSHA is allowed to pass laws and regulations governing workplace safety.[1]

In July 2011, Cal/OSHA sent a letter to the City of Los Angeles saying that in it's opinion, the City of Los Angeles can pass its own laws regulating condom use on movie sets.[13]

A hearing on the lawsuit took place on January 25, 2012.
External links
BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

No On Government Waste, which opposes Measure B
AIDS Health, a pro-Measure B website
The "Yes on B" website
"Yes on B" on Twitter
"No To Measure B" on Twitter
Free Speech Coalition, which opposes Measure B
#MeasureB on Twitter (pro and con tweets)

References

[Geo]

Who didn't eat all their veggies?