In summary
Other states, including Nevada, are deleting references to slavery in their constitutions and banning forced prison labor. California voters rejected that path when they turned down Prop. 6.
In a setback to California’s historic reparations effort, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have ended forced labor in prisons and jails. Proposition 6 garnered support from Democratic party leaders, labor unions and dozens of advocacy groups who viewed their efforts as part of a national movement to end a racist legacy and abolish slavery.
The measure would have amended the state’s constitution to repeal language that allows involuntary servitude as a form of criminal punishment, making work assignments voluntary and allowing incarcerated people to prioritize their rehabilitation.
“While it’s disappointing that our measure to remove slavery from California’s constitution was not approved by the voters, this setback does not end the fight,” wrote Democratic Assemblymember Lori Wilson from Suisun City in a statement on Friday morning. “Together, we will continue pushing forward to ensure that our state’s constitution reflects the values of equality and freedom that all Californians deserve.”
California mandates tens of thousands of incarcerated people to work at jobs – many of which they do not choose — ranging from packaging nuts to doing dishes, to making license plates, sanitizer and furniture for less than 74 cents an hour, according to legislative summaries of prison work.
If a person does not complete their work, regardless of illness, injury or bereavement, they face punishment, such as disciplinary infractions, which can lead to losing privileges including visits from family members. Prop. 6 would have prohibited the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from disciplining incarcerated people who refuse a work assignment.
California has a history of enslavement and racially discriminatory policies despite the fact that it entered the union as a free state, as detailed by the California’s Reparations Task Force. The measure was sponsored by Wilson and recommended by the Reparations Task Force as a step toward upholding human rights and addressing systemic injustices that have harmed Black Californians.
“At what point, California, will you see us?” said Dr. Cheryl Grills, a psychology professor at Loyola Marymount University and member of the Reparations Task Force. “How much did (voters) understand the context of over 200 years of forced labor put on Black people? And where’s the humanity and compassion for the pain and suffering of the people whose ancestors endured that, and whose current generations are living with the legacy of that?”
Did unclear ballot language imperil Prop. 6?
A similar attempt to ban forced prison labor failed in 2022. At the time, the California Department of Finance opposed the proposal, noting that it had the potential to drive up prison spending by $1.5 billion annually to provide minimum wage to incarcerated workers. This time, lawmakers adjusted what became Prop. 6 to clarify that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have set wages for voluntary work assignments in state prisons.
Lawmakers and advocates pursued a constitutional amendment as a way to “guarantee that (California) does not repeat enslavement, just wrapped up in a different outfit,” Grills said.
It faced no funded opposition, and as election results showed the measure trailing, Prop. 6 supporters and independent political experts said the language might have confused voters.
The California Attorney General’s Office writes ballot language and summaries, and the word “slavery” did not appear on the California ballot. Instead, the language read, “Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.”
“When I saw the words ‘involuntary servitude,’ I thought, ‘This might take some explaining for the voters,’” said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. “We know that when people are unsure or uncertain, the default is to vote ‘no.’”
In Nevada this election, a measure similar to Prop. 6 passed with 60% voter approval. Voters there saw ballot language that referenced slavery.
The Nevada measure read, “Shall the Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove language authorizing the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment?”
“If Prop. 6 had slavery in the ballot title summary, it would have passed – just like in Nevada,” said J Vasquez, a formerly incarcerated organizer for the advocacy group Communities United for Restorative Youth. “People couldn’t make the connection between current working prison conditions and slavery.”
Assemblymember Wilson also pointed to the Prop. 6 ballot language her a statement on the measure’s failure.
“The Prop. 6 campaign believes that using clearer language, like other states have done, could have provided voters with the historical context and moral imperative behind Proposition 6. This experience has underscored the importance of framing and education, and we’re taking these insights into account as we plan the path forward,” she wrote in her statement.
A Prop. 6 victory would have put California behind a growing number of states, including Oregon, Utah and Alabama, that recently removed language sanctioning involuntary servitude from their constitutions. Now, involuntary servitude remains embedded in 15 state constitutions.
“California got it wrong,” Vasquez said. “And now, we’re going to keep seeing the same old revolving door of people getting out and going right back in. Shame on us for not doing what we could to build safer communities.”
‘A highway for exploitation’
Proponents of Prop. 6 say California’s constitutional provision has created “a highway for exploitation” that hampers an incarcerated person’s ability to participate in rehabilitation.
“A lot of the programs that are vital to rehabilitation are held at the same time as the majority of the forced work assignments,” said Lawrence Cox, regional advocacy and organizing associate at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.
That tension effectively makes rehabilitation a secondary priority and hinders an incarcerated person’s ability to prepare for release, the measure’s supporters said.
Roughly 40% of people released from state prisons were convicted of new crimes within three years, according to the state’s most recent report on recidivism.
“Accountability is not going in there and pushing a broom all day,” Vasquez said. “It’s about someone working on themselves so when they come back to the community, we all benefit.”
Findings from a report earlier this year by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation “point to lower recidivism rates for those who earned credits from participation and completion of rehabilitative programming.”
“Nothing about prison slavery is good for rehabilitation and rehabilitation is what’s good for public safety,” said Carmen Cox, director of government affairs at ACLU California Action. “I genuinely believe that Californians don’t want to fund slavery. We will immediately begin the education campaign. People do not understand what it looks like to be an incarcerated worker and how that impacts folks outside.”
Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.
