I'm with Holmes. Wearing condoms is a workplace safety issue.
And as Mr. Moderate said, if the workplace moves, what difference does it make besides lost revenue for the city of Los Angeles?
WTF man. Why bother having any regulations at all, if you are worried about companies going out of state.
It's not out of state, but only out of city, which is easy enough to do that as Mr. Moderate said, it will happen. It's the sort of law that can only work as intended if applied on a larger scope. As a city regulation it is worse than useless, as a California state law it would be marginally useful, and it would work best as a Federal law.
Anyway, South Carolina has one statewide ballot measure: Amendment 1 (2012). It would revise the office of Lieutenant Governor. Currently the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor, serves as the President of the Senate, and when the office is vacant, the President pro tem of the Senate becomes the Lieutenant Governor. The amendment would have the Governor and Lieutenant Governor run as a ticket, have him no longer preside over the Senate, and when the office is vacant, the Governor would nominate a replacement who would be approved by the Senate.
I'll be voting no. I'd prefer to simply get rid of this unnecessary office, but not only does this amendment keep the office, it makes it worse.
I have no problem with the first change, even if it does eliminate the amusing possibility of the governor and lieutenant governor be of different parties which has happened three times in the last ten elections. (The last was in 1998 where Bob Peeler was reelected as a Republican Lt. Gov. but Democrat Jim Hodges defeated David Beasley for Gov.)
The other two changes are what makes the amendment bad in my opinion. If we must have a Lieutenant Governor, having him be the presiding officer of the Senate is the most useful thing he could do while waiting for the Governor's office to have a vacancy. As for the nomination process, I agree that regardless of the change in how the office is filled that it makes sense to have the governor nominate a replacement, but other nominations made by the governor require that the entire General Assembly sitting as one body approve (each Representative and each Senator has one vote), not merely one house, and I do not like having a different method for this nomination.
