California’s prisoners should not be subjected to abuse by their jailers. But inmates should not be legally empowered to dictate what chores they’re willing to do while behind bars.
That’s why voters should reject Proposition 6, a measure cloaked in language about slavery and involuntary servitude that’s really about prisoners being able to turn down work assignments.
The fundamental question here is whether inmates should be required to provide work that contributes toward their room and board. We believe they should, just as the rest of us on the outside who have not committed crimes must also do.
It’s why the state prison system relies heavily on inmate labor for its operations. The alternative is an even greater taxpayer burden to maintain our jails and prisons.
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Similarly, Article I, Section 6 of the California Constitution prohibits slavery and “involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.”
Proposition 6 seeks to rewrite the state’s constitutional protection by eliminating the exception to punish crime. And then the ballot measure would add a provision that “the Department of Corrections shall not discipline any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment.”
State Attorney General Rob Bonta put his thumb on the electoral scale when he provided the ballot title for the measure, saying it “eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude.” He could have just as accurately said that it “adds constitutional provision allowing inmates to refuse work.”
Remember, this is not just a change to state law, this is an amendment to the state Constitution. Not only is it a bad policy to begin with, one can only imagine the potential litigation that could ensue as inmates try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a work assignment.
Might it include, for example, protecting inmates from being required to keep their own cells clean? Might a court interpret the new constitutional provision as entitling inmates to minimum wage pay, costing the state potentially billions of dollars for work that essentially maintains their own living facility?
Related Articles
Editorial: California’s Prop. 4 favors politics over sound policy. Vote no.
Editorial: Prop. 36’s smart response to crime, addiction, homelessness
Editorial: Prop. 2 fails to fix broken California school bond program. Vote no.
Editorial: California Medi-Cal measure locks in special-interest funding
Editorial: California voters should OK modest minimum-wage increase
To be sure, work assignments should not be doled out arbitrarily as a means of unfairly punishing prisoners. But if there is a problem with abusive jailers, it should be dealt with through targeted legislation, not with a sweeping constitutional amendment that potentially enables inmates to legally engage in work stoppages that shut down prison facilities.
Requiring inmates to sweep the floors, clean the bathrooms or cook in the kitchen is reasonable. If we expect the same of ourselves and our children, if we can insist members of the military conduct those chores, certainly we can ask incarcerated convicted criminals to do the same.
Voters should reject Proposition 6.