Proposition 6 is a fraud. It purports to be abolishing “slavery” in California, but it’s really an effort to force taxpayers to pay higher wages to state prison inmates for working at jobs while incarcerated.
According to the Legislative Analyst Office’s breakdown of Proposition 6 in the statewide Voter Information Guide, about one-third of prisoners work, generally at jobs related to operating the facility, such as cooking, cleaning or laundry. Proposition 6 characterizes these jobs as “indentured servitude” and would prohibit the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from requiring inmates to work.
Specifically, Prop. 6 would remove the exception for prison labor from the state constitution’s ban on indentured servitude. It would prohibit the CDCR from taking any action against an inmate who refused to work.
The LAO’s analysis of Prop. 6 notes, “if people in prison and jail no longer face consequences for refusing to work, prisons and/or jails might have to find other ways to encourage working. If this is done by increasing pay, costs would increase.”
When the bill that became Proposition 6 was under consideration in the legislature it was Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8 and was simply titled “Slavery.” According to the author, Assembly Member Lori Wilson, “Involuntary servitude is an extension of slavery,” and “there’s no room for slavery in our constitution.”
But the bill analysis for the Senate Appropriations Committee warned that the fiscal impact of the legislation included “unknown, potentially significant state costs” and “unknown, potentially significant non-reimbursable ongoing local costs” as a result of prohibiting “involuntary servitude” in prisons and jails.
One reason for the uncertainty is what the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee called, “anticipated litigation.” The costs depend on “whether the courts require incarcerated individuals to be paid minimum wage for work performed in prison.”
Previous court decisions have held that state prisoners are not employees entitled to minimum wage, but those decisions were based on the provision in the state constitution that Proposition 6 would remove — the “except to punish crime” phrase following the ban on involuntary servitude.
Another basis for previous court decisions denying inmates the minimum wage is a state law, Penal Code Section 2700, that requires every person incarcerated in state prison to work. But that law would be deleted by Assembly Bill 628, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on July 2. AB 628 takes effect if voters approve Proposition 6.
AB 628 says minimum wage laws will not apply to work in state prisons or local jails. The courts may have other ideas.
However, according to the analysis of ACA 8 (now Prop. 6) for the Senate Appropriations Committee, “even if state law exempts incarcerated persons from the state minimum wage, it is likely that incarcerated persons classified as ‘employees’ would have to be paid the federal minimum wage.”
What would it cost California taxpayers?
“If this measure is approved by the voters and if CDCR is required to pay minimum wage, increase[d] costs could be in the billions of dollars annually,” according to the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
That’s “billions” with a “b.”
Proposition 6 allows prison authorities to incentivize inmates to work by awarding “credits.” That raises another question: will Prop. 6 lead to early releases of inmates serving sentences for serious crimes because the prisons didn’t have the budget to pay them to work?
In 2022, Sen. Steven Bradford authored Senate Bill 1371, which would have required the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt a five-year schedule to increase the wages of state prison inmates.
Related Articles
Kamala Harris shouldn’t be proud that the warmongering Cheneys have endorsed her
“Rebel Ridge” mirrors the stranger-than-fiction reality of civil asset forfeiture
In California’s one-party system, political family feuds fill competitive vacuum
Trump needs to revamp his campaign if he wants to win. How can he?
Senate Bill 399 is an arrogant attempt at monopolizing information
SB 1371 passed the legislature but was vetoed by the governor. “Bills with significant fiscal impact, such as this measure, should be considered and accounted for as part of the annual budget process,” Newsom wrote.
Backers of Proposition 6 seek to sidestep the blame for “significant fiscal impact” by avoiding any mention of wages in the measure. Instead, they slice away a provision in the state constitution that underpins court decisions that blocked significant wage increases for prison inmates. It’s a clever two-step, an incremental approach that detonates an explosion in costs to taxpayers, but not until everyone responsible has safely escaped to their next office.
Vote no on Proposition 6.
Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley