California Proposition 35, Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 35
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 35 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 6, 2012. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported increasing maximum sentencing for human trafficking to 15 years to life and $1.5 million in fines; allocating collected fines to victims of human trafficking and law enforcement; requiring persons convicted to be registered as a sex offender; and requires human trafficking training for law enforcement.

A "no" vote opposed increasing maximum sentencing for human trafficking to 15 years to life and $1.5 million in fines, thereby maintaining the existing criminal penalties.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 35
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		10,078,476	81.35%
No		2,310,612	18.65%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

The day after the election, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on the provision that requires sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts to law enforcement. The judge acted in response to a class action lawsuit filed against the provision by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of two anonymous sex offenders to whom the provision applies. This injunction was extended on January 11, 2013 and applies only to the provision that requires convicted sex offenders to provide internet identifiers. All other Proposition 35 provisions remain in effect.

Overview

Proposition 35 amended state law to increase the maximum penalty for human trafficking to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1.5 million. The fines collected from the new maximum penalty would be allocated to victims and law enforcement. It also required that persons convicted of human trafficking register as sex offenders and required sex offenders to share their internet activities. Proposition 35 also required that law enforcement be trained to identify and stop human trafficking and prohibited evidence that victims engaged in sexual conduct from being used against the victim in court. Prior to the measure taking effect, the maximum criminal penalties for human trafficking were 8 years and $100,000 in fines.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 35 was as follows:

“

Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000. • Fines collected to be used for victim services and law enforcement. • Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender. • Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities. • Prohibits evidence that victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against victim in court proceedings. • Requires human trafficking training for police officers.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

Increased costs, not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually, to state and local governments for criminal justice activities related to the prosecution and incarceration of human trafficking offenders. Potential one-time local government costs of up to a few million dollars on a statewide basis, and lesser additional costs incurred each year, due to new mandatory human trafficking-related training requirements for law enforcement officers. Potential additional revenue from new criminal fines, likely a few million dollars annually, which would fund services for human trafficking victims and for law enforcement activities related to human trafficking.

Note: The original fiscal note given to Proposition 35 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Potential one-time local government costs of up to a few million dollars on a statewide basis, and lesser additional costs incurred each year, due to the new mandatory training requirements for certain law enforcement officers. Minor increase to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising human trafficking offenders. Unknown amount of additional revenue from new criminal fees, likely not to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, which would fund services for human trafficking victims."

Support

"Yes on 35" website logo

Yes on 35 led the campaign in support of Proposition 35. Chris Kelly, a 2010 candidate for Attorney General of California, helped draft Proposition 35. Kelly, the former chief of privacy at Facebook, also contributed over $2.3 million to the campaign in favor of Proposition 35.

Supporters

Individuals

• Senator Barbara Boxer (D)
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)
• House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)
• Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (D)
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D)
• John Walsh
• Marc Klaas
• Jada Pinkett Smith

Organizations

• California Democratic Party
• California Republican Party
• Planned Parenthood
• NOW
• California Labor Federation
• Crime Victims United of California
• Peace Officers Research Association of California
• California Fraternal Order of Police
• National Latino Peace Officers Association (State of California)

• California Association of Highway Patrolmen
• California Police Chiefs Association
• California Nurses Association
• California Catholic Conference
• Church State Council
• Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition
• GenerateHope
• Mary Magdalene Project
• Shared Hope International

Official arguments

The arguments in favor of Proposition 35 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Leah Albright-Byrd, a human trafficking survivor; Marc Klaas, the president of the KlaasKids Foundation; and Scott R. Seaman, the president of the California Police Chiefs Association:

“

STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING—YES on 35. In California, vulnerable women and children are held against their will and forced into prostitution for the financial gain of human traffickers. Many victims are girls as young as 12. Human trafficking is one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises in the world, and it’s happening right here on California’s streets and online where young girls are bought and sold. A national study recently gave California an “F” grade on its laws dealing with child sex trafficking. That’s why we need Proposition 35. Yes on 35 will: Increase prison terms for human traffickers, to hold these criminals accountable. Require convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders, to prevent future crimes. Require all registered sex offenders to disclose their Internet accounts, to stop the exploitation of children online. Increase fines from convicted human traffickers and use these funds to pay for victims’ services, so survivors can repair their lives. Prop. 35 protects children from sexual exploitation. Many sex trafficking victims are vulnerable children. They are afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, and mentally. The FBI recognizes three cities in California—Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego—as high intensity child sex trafficking areas. That’s why we need Prop. 35 to protect children from exploitation. Prop. 35 holds human traffickers accountable for their horrendous crimes. 'Sex traffickers prey on the most vulnerable in our society. They get rich and throw their victims away. Prop. 35 will hold these criminals accountable. By passing 35, Californians will make a statement that we will not tolerate the sexual abuse of our children and that we stand with the victims of these horrible crimes.' —Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney and national victims’ rights advocate Prop. 35 helps stop exploitation of children that starts online. The Internet provides traffickers with access to vulnerable children. Prop. 35 requires convicted sex offenders to provide information to authorities about their Internet presence, which will help protect our children and prevent human trafficking. California’s largest law enforcement groups urge YES on 35. 'As those on the front lines in the fight against human trafficking, we strongly urge YES on 35 to help us prosecute sex traffickers and protect victims of sexual exploitation.' —Ron Cottingham, President, Peace Officers Research Association of California, representing 64,000 public safety members Crime victims and their advocates urge YES on 35. 'Prop. 35 will protect children from human traffickers who profit from selling them on the street and online.' —Marc Klaas, crime victims’ advocate and father of Polly Klaas, who was kidnapped and killed in 1993 'At 14, I ran away from a troubled home and into the clutches of a human trafficker. For years, I was trafficked and abused when I was still just a child. As a survivor of trafficking, I’m asking Californians to stand against sexual exploitation and vote Yes on 35.' —Leah Albright-Byrd, Human Trafficking Survivor PROTECT CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL EXPLOITATION. STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKERS. YES on 35. VoteYeson35.com

”

Opposition

Opponents

• Cindy Liou, a staff attorney at Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
• Perla Flores, a program manager at Community Solutions in Morgan Hills
• Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
• California Council of Churches-Oppose Prop 35
• San Francisco Rising
• Bernal Heights Democratic Club
• California Association for Criminal Justice
• Peace and Freedom Party

Arguments

• Cindy Liou, who works with trafficking victims, said, "It incorrectly presumes that increased prosecution and protections of trafficking survivors is entirely premised on increased penalties and fines rather than a comprehensive approach."
• Perla Flores, who works with trafficking victims, said, "The work of human trafficking, it's not just all up to the prosecutors. It's also everybody else who has been at the table for years, developing a system that's collaborative and victim-centered."

Official arguments

The arguments against Proposition 35 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Maxine Doogan, the president of the Exotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project; Manual Jiminez, the Chief Financial Officer of the Exotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project; and Starchild:

“

This measure allegedly aimed at human trafficking actually threatens many innocent people: If Proposition 35 passes, anyone receiving financial support from normal, consensual prostitution among adults—including a sex worker’s children, parents, spouse, domestic partner, roommate, landlord, or others—could be prosecuted as a human trafficker, and if convicted, forced to register as a sex offender for life! 'My son, who served our country in the U.S. military and now attends college, could be labeled a human trafficker and have to register as a sex offender if I support him with money Iearn providing erotic services.'—Maxine Doogan Rather than working with sex worker communities to stop real human traffickers, far-left anti-sex feminists and farright religious conservatives who back Proposition 35 hope voters who hear 'trafficking' will be deceived into supporting their futile crusade against the 'world’s oldest profession' by further criminalizing people connected with consensual adult prostitution. Proponents’ argument that California is a 'high intensity area' for trafficking is suspiciously similar to debunked claims made elsewhere: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index. ssf/2011/01/portland_child_sex_trafficking.html Proposition 35 would create a new unfunded liability for our state, just when California’s government is in fiscal crisis and numerous cities have already filed for bankruptcy. A wealthy executive supplied over 90% of Proposition 35’s campaign donations—http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/07/californians-against-sexual-exploitation-act_n_1656311.html— but his money won’t be there to fund enforcement. Traffickers footing the bill is wishful thinking—forfeiture hasn’t paid for the 'War on Drugs', and will never adequately fund a 'War on Prostitution' either. Vote NO on Proposition 35!

”

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

• The Contra Costa Times: "The proposition would expand some of the definitions of human trafficking in California laws and would increase the fines and penalties for engaging in such illegal conduct, and it severely increases those penalties for repeat offenders."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "While it could make the job of police harder, we support any effort to keep people from being treated as slaves."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "A 2011 study by Shared Hope International and American Center for Law and Justice gave California an 'F' for its laws protecting women and children from exploitation. Prop. 35 would make up for that failing grade in a big way -- by enacting some of the most severe penalties nationally for human traffickers."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "The FBI reports that three cities in California -- Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco -- are among the nation's 13 highest child sex trafficking areas. Yet the Legislative Analyst's Office found only 18 convicted human traffickers in state prison when it crafted its independent analysis of Prop. 35. Clearly, there's a disconnect between the number of victims and the prosecution of their abusers."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "While a proposition is not the best way to write and vet criminal law, a similar law in New York has increased public and police awareness about the problem."

• The North County Times: "These increased punishments are appropriate ---- and, given the ongoing reports of human trafficking here in California, sadly necessary."

• The Orange County Register: "Nonetheless, in light of some of our concerns regarding Prop. 35, this Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote – albeit with some reservations."

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "Proposition 35 will help protect the exploited and punish latter-day slavers."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "There's no disputing California and its cities face huge budgetary uncertainties, but it would be callous and wrong to say such minimal costs are not worth incurring to protect some of the most vulnerable living among us."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Like most citizen initiatives, Proposition 35 is not perfect. The language of some provisions is imprecise, sometimes out of sync with federal law or otherwise problematic. That’s why a legislative solution would have been better. But that was not to be. And the reality is that Proposition 35 was endorsed by the state Democratic and Republican parties and dozens of statewide and local law enforcement agencies, including the San Diego and Chula Vista police officer associations and the local Deputy Sheriffs’ Association."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "Under the measure, human traffickers could receive up to 12 years (instead of the current maximum five) - with the potential penalty rising to 15 years to life if the crime involves a minor. Those tougher sentences would match federal law and would give prosecutors a greater incentive to pursue trafficking cases against adults who exploit children in prostitution."

• The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "Proposition 35 on the Nov. 6 ballot ensures that those who trade on human lives pay a high price with tough new sentencing guidelines and dramatic increases to fines."

• The San Jose Mercury News

• The Vallejo Times-Herald: "Critics...worry that the new definition of human traffickers is so vague that it could include people caught distributing child pornography, even if they had no personal contact with the young victims. We'd prefer the language were tighter, but the possibility that some aggressive prosecutors will overreach and throw the book at some child porn distributor -- well, that's a risk we're somehow willing to take."

Opposition

• The Bay Area Reporter: "This proposition is an abuse of the initiative process. The proposition makes no provision for funding, which will certainly be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. It also contains numerous provisions that seriously invade privacy and would have lifelong effects on those caught in its web. We are sensitive to the issue, because it wasn't that long ago that gay men were arrested and forced to register as sex offenders for offenses as minor as public urination. Under this proposition, they would lose all personal privacy for life. It is bad policy."

• The Fresno Bee: "Human trafficking is a despicable crime. But Proposition 35 on the Nov. 6 ballot is not the right approach to the problem."

• The Lompoc Record: "Prop. 35 thus zeroes in on some of mankind’s most loathsome predators. That’s the feel-good part. The not-so-feel-good aspect is that this get-tougher-on-crime trend will further burden the state’s prison system, therefore California taxpayers, while doing very little to stem the tide of human trafficking."

• The Los Angeles Times: "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."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "Sex trafficking is a repugnant crime that needs to be prevented and punished. State lawmakers have a responsibility to beef up the laws against it and keep them current. We recommend a 'no' vote on Proposition 35 while standing firmly against any form of human trafficking."

• The Modesto Bee:"It's difficult to oppose Proposition 35, a measure that purports to stop a crime as despicable as human trafficking. But the proposition is overbroad and misdirected."

• The Press-Enterprise: "Human trafficking is a heinous crime, certainly, but the rigid prescriptions of a ballot measure are a poor way to address a complex issue. Voters should reject Prop. 35, in favor of more flexible and comprehensive approaches."

• Sacramento Bee: "It's difficult to oppose Proposition 35, a measure that purports to stop a crime as despicable as human trafficking. But the proposition is overbroad and misdirected."

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Prop. 35 is a parade of horribles that could be used to make someone who peed in public turn over his Internet information and to threaten friends and relatives of sex workers. Under this law, the adult child of a sex worker who was living in her house with her financial support could be tagged a trafficker — and could face a long prison term and a lifetime of being tagged as a sex offender."

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Curiously, Prop. 35 fails to deal with one of the major difficulties in prosecuting trafficking cases -- the reluctance of victims to come forward because of their immigration status or fear of retaliation from criminal gangs. Instead, the measure seems to take for granted that imposing longer sentences and bigger fines will persuade victims to testify. That's a dubious assumption."

• The Ventura County Star: "Another problem is Proposition 35's overreaching language. We foresee that courts will find it unconstitutionally limits an accused person's right to assert his or her innocence. Also, individuals could face severe penalties for very limited, indirect involvement with artistic or other creative works that later are found to have used minors illegally."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

The California Business Roundtable, in conjunction with Pepperdine University, conducted polls on Proposition 35.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	77.8%	13.6%	8.6%	830
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	76.5%	13.7%	9.8%	2,115

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Daphne Phung submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on October 26, 2011.
• The ballot title and ballot summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 23, 2011.
• To qualify for the ballot, 504,760 valid signatures were required.
• The 150-day circulation deadline for #11-0059 was May 21, 2012.
• On April 10, 2012, the California Secretary of State announced that signatures had been submitted.
• On May 9, 2012, the California Secretary of State announced that the initiative had qualified for the November 6, 2012, ballot.

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 35 for the ballot came to $1,437,523.

The signature vendor was Progressive Campaigns (PCI).

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Ballot language

Supporters of Proposition 35 filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court on August 3, 2012. The lawsuit was successful. The purpose of the lawsuit was to force the California Secretary of State, in the Spanish-language version of the state's official voter guide, to replace the term "tráfico humano" with "trata de personas."

Federal lawsuit

Immediately following the election, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court, asking that the court to stop from going into effect the provision which required convicted sex offenders to provide internet identifiers to law enforcement. They based the lawsuit on the grounds that the provision violated the United States Constitution.

The day after the election, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the internet identifier provision from going into effect, and the temporary injunction was extended on January 11, 2013 The injunction applied only to the provision that requires convicted sex offenders to provide their internet identifiers to law enforcement. All other Proposition 35 provisions remained in effect.

The general thrust of the lawsuit was that the provision restricted the free speech and free association rights of registered sex offenders, particularly online. Two anonymous sex offenders were the plaintiffs in the "Joe Doe" lawsuit. One of them said in the suit that, because of the proposition, he would no longer be allowed to participate in online political discussions. The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation helped with the lawsuit because they believe that, when a registered sex offender is unable to participate in online political discussions without revealing his status as a registered sex offender, this amounts to an unconstitutional burden on the free speech and association rights of the sex offender.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Criminal sentencing on the ballot
• Law enforcement officers and departments on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information:

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 35
• Arguments for and against Proposition 35 in the official state voter guide
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 11-0059

Supporters:

• "Vote Yes on 35" campaign website
• "Yes on 35" on Facebook
• "Yes on 35" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports of "Californians Against Sexual Exploitation
• Campaign finance reports of "Safer California Foundation"

Opponents:

• Erotic Service Provider Legal, Educational and Research Project
• THE CALIFORNIA Law- Turning all consensual sex acts into “human trafficking
• No On Prop 35-Victims advocates and Cops Speak out
• Disputing the lies of Prop 35: "legislators have not done anything for victims." Here is a list of 4 laws regarding sex, money and the minors passed in 2011 by one California Assembly lawmaker