More than 53 percent of voters across California in the Nov. 5 general election upheld continuing involuntary servitude for incarcerated people.
That’s more than 7.8 million people who rejected Proposition 6, which aimed to bar slavery in any form and repeal the provision in the state Constitution allowing jails and prisons to force incarcerated people to work as a punishment for crime.
“They’re just sitting there in a big building just eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner and just being there,” Atascadero resident and first-time voter Eli Lopez said. “I feel like using them for like load work or for picking up trash on the side of the freeway is better use of them than for them just to rot in jail. That way, they’re beneficial to society instead of being a hindrance to society.”
Twenty-one-year-old Cuesta College student Lopez isn’t alone in his thinking. According to the final election results, 59.4 percent of votes cast in San Luis Obispo County said no to Proposition 6.
“[Inmates] learn real life skills that prepare them for jobs upon their release,” Atascadero resident and Arroyo Grande native Christine Rivas-Rodriguez told New Times via Facebook. “Landscaping, clerical, cooking, warehouse, janitorial, printing, painting, etc. We pay way too much for them to be there already. I did not vote to give them even more.”
According to the argument in favor of passing the proposition printed in the official voter information guide, the measure would end slavery in California and replace carceral involuntary servitude with voluntary work programs. With bipartisan support, it aligned with national efforts to reform the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the country and its territories except as punishment for a crime.
Esteban Nuñez, the chief strategy consultant of Proposition 6 advocacy group Anti-Recidivism Coalition, told New Times that ballot language proved to be a stumbling block.
“Our ballot title, it’s technical by nature, but the words ‘involuntary servitude,’ it didn’t necessarily provide necessary context to voters to draw the connection to slavery and the importance of removing the extension,” he said. “We knew that voters do not know what involuntary servitude is, and when you frame it as an extension to slavery it helps voters really understand what we’re talking about.”
He added that the Los Angeles-based coalition tried working with the Attorney General’s Office to secure a more favorable ballot summary, but officials felt strongly that their draft was accurate enough from a legal standpoint. The resulting title was wordy: “Eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for incarcerated persons.”
“A lot of people felt like by voting yes, it would have meant people in prison wouldn’t have to work, which is completely inaccurate,” Nuñez said. “It really was about allowing folks to be able to prioritize rehabilitation, whatever form that looks like—educational programs, substance abuse disorder programs, and vocational training.”
Nuñez is a formerly incarcerated person who served six years in Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, Amador County. There, he worked eight-hour unpaid shifts as a custodian. But mopping the day room and disinfecting tables only took him an hour.
“What am I doing with the rest of my time? I have to sit there and just twiddle my thumbs, and I’m not able to take part in educational programs. I’m not able to take part in therapy,” he said. “I wasn’t able to go take part in any kind of rehabilitative programming during my scheduled time because it takes priority.”
Since at least 2018, California has been behind the curve compared to states like Colorado, Nebraska, Utah, Alabama, Tennessee, Vermont, Nevada, and Oregon, which passed ballot measures of their own to end forced prison labor. The measures and amendments passed by these states all have the word “slavery” in their ballot titles.
Despite the new prohibition in these states, prisoners still have access to incentives to earn good time credits either by choosing to work or enrolling in educational programs.
“These other states that have passed [measures] have not seen this mass exodus of people not working,” Nuñez said. “Prison operations have maintained the status quo. It just allows folks the autonomy to tailor their program, which is really what is in the best interest of public safety.”
In SLO’s California Men’s Colony, prisoners get to work as porters, clerks, plumbers, carpenters, and so forth. They get paid for it, too, according to Correctional Lt. Trad Eilers.
“We’re like a small city,” Eilers said. “Any job that’s on the outside, we have on the inside.”
Beginning April 16, 2024, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) increased the wages of all incarcerated workers as part of a commitment to prepare them for successful reintegration into their communities.
“The decision, informed by input from employees, incarcerated individuals, and community organizations, aims to allow incarcerated people to work fewer hours while participating in rehabilitative programs,” CDCR Press Secretary Terri Hardy said. “The wage increase incentivizes job retention, supports restitution payments, and helps individuals save for their release.”
Hardy didn’t disclose the pay range for incarcerated workers. She added that all unpaid work assignments have now been eliminated. Up to 75 percent of the full-time jobs held by those incarcerated in the state’s prison system will switch to half-time positions. These changes align with the CDCR’s freshly rolled out California Model program, which strives to build safer communities through rehabilitation, education, and reentry.
Effective Aug. 31, 2022, updated CDCR regulations require every able-bodied prisoner to enroll in employment or rehabilitative programs.
“These regulations also make clear that when assigning an individual to work, academic, therapeutic, or other institutional programs, the individual’s expressed desires and needs are among the factors that are considered,” Hardy said.
It isn’t completely the end of the road for Proposition 6 just yet. Nuñez told New Times that among other lessons learned, the coalition realized that it launched a formal campaign advocating for the measure too close to the November election date because the proposition only qualified for the ballot on June 27.
The movement’s prime source of funding came from labor unions and nonprofits like Quest for Democracy Action Network and All of Us or None of Us Action Network. The Secretary of State website showed that the proposition had a total of $714,904 on hand as a result of contributions from all its supporters.
Next time, Nuñez said, the coalition is going to work on outreach and education much earlier, boosting levels of voter awareness and funding in the process.
“What was most disheartening is it’s hard as a state for us to say that we’re trying to remove institutional racism when a form of racism still lives and breathes in the document that is supposed to embody our principles as a state,” he said. Δ
Reach Staff Writer Bulbul Rajagopal at brajagopal@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Jan 2-12, 2025.