The Los Angeles Times has now released their endorsement of “NO on Prop 35.” I can take a lot of pride in this particular endorsement since I was fortunate enough to have been invited to speak to the LA Times Editorial Board against Prop 35 by Maxine Doogan, the Chair of the “No on Prop 35” campaign in California. I posted an article about the experience on September 22, 2012 ( Please see: http://adultbizlaw.com/prop-35-our-meeting-with-the-los-angeles-timess-editorial-board/ ). Maxine and a small group of people have now been able to convince three major newspapers not to endorse Prop 35 despite the fact that we are battling a well oiled campaign machine that is supporting Prop 35 with more than $2 million dollars in funding! This is truly David vs. Goliath. The LA Times joins the Sacramento Bee and the Fresno Bee as taking a NO position on Prop 35 ( Please see: http://adultbizlaw.com/sacramento-bee-fresno-bee-both-say-no-on-prop-35/ ).
Here is an excerpt from the LA Times editorial endorsement;
“If reducing sex trafficking and forced labor were as simple as adopting a ballot measure that promised to deal with those predatory practices, there would be every reason to vote for the popular Proposition 35. But the initiative system doesn’t work that way. Voters must ask more than whether they would like to see those cruelties come to an end. They must be satisfied that the particular, far-reaching and inflexible penalties and procedures that would be enacted by this measure would help; that they are the best approach to solving an actual problem; and that actual progress would dwarf any unintended consequences.
Proposition 35 fails those tests. Voters should not be lulled into believing that by approving this measure they will be taking effective action against slavery and sexual exploitation. Even if well intentioned, this initiative falls well short of the mark. The Times urges a no vote.“
The issue that I spoke to the Editorial Board directly on was cited as one of the LA Times main concerns about Prop 35;
“It expands the sex offender registry and, in so doing, converts it from a useful tool to help police and residents track the whereabouts of potentially dangerous sexual predators into a list that includes non-sex criminals, including traffickers who extort money. This muddies the purpose of the database. Traffickers, along with existing sex offenders, would be required to provide local police with their Internet providers and screen names. Few Californians would feel sorry for criminals who have to provide information, but it is a poorly targeted approach to the problem with the registry — the largest in the nation.”
Read the entire article here – http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-end-prop35-20121010,0,4382854.story