With an estimated 54% of votes counted, Proposition 6 seems poised to fail with 54.6% of votes cast against it, according to data from the Associated Press.
There was no formal opposition to the measure and little vocal opposition before the election, according to The New York Times, which also noted that less than $2 million was raised in support of the effort.
The proposition would have changed the California Constitution to ensure that incarcerated people could not be forced into labor while in a state prison or county jail. In 2022, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont passed similar measures. On the ballots in those states, the proposition referred to the practice as “slavery” instead of “involuntary servitude,” which some believe made a difference in the outcome.
According to Esteban Núñez, senior strategy consultant and lobbyist at the Anti Recidivism Coalition who ran communications for one of the “Yes on 6″ committees, not having the word “slavery” included on ballots could be one of the main reasons Prop. 6 fails.
“I think that framing is so important because it poses the moral question, and provides voters with the historical context of where this practice derives from, and that was something we were really missing,” Núñez said.
Núñez said early supporters of Prop. 6 advocated for including the word “slavery” when they submitted a draft of the ballot initiative. The attorney general’s office ultimately decided not to include it, he said. But this is not the end of the road for the effort.
Núñez said the leadership of the “Yes on 6″ committee plans to go back to the drawing board to get the initiative back in front of voters — next time with the word “slavery” on the ballot.
“We have an opportunity to really be a part of history,” Núñez said. “Not my generation nor [younger] generations took part in the stain in our history of slavery, but we have an opportunity to remove the remnants and ensure we’re prohibiting all exceptions to slavery.”
In California, where the state minimum wage is $16 an hour, people who are incarcerated can be required to work jobs to upkeep prison and jail facilities for less than $1 an hour. They can also be sent out to combat wildfires throughout the state for around $10 a day, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Instead of pay, some incarcerated people who are eligible can receive “time credits” for their work, which can provide benefits such as reducing the length of their sentence.
Californians who are incarcerated can also choose not to work for either form of compensation, though those individuals risk facing consequences. They may be barred from making regular phone calls or having family visits, or they risk re-extending their sentences by losing some of their earned time credits.
Núñez, who spent six years in prison himself, said he has seen firsthand how the practice of forced labor “really inhibits people’s ability to prioritize rehabilitation.”
Chloe DerGarabedian, a senior non-governmental organizations, social change and environmental studies major, said she has been frustrated by the conditions she has seen at the California Institute for Women, a women’s prison in Chino, while volunteering there with the Dornsife Prison Education Project.
“I’m talking to people all the time that get paid less than $1 an hour to do work that other Californians are getting paid $18 to do, and that’s insane,” DerGarabedian said.
She said she thinks a combination of a lack of education about Prop. 6, combined with the benefits some powerholders can receive from low-cost prison labor, led to the outcome of the ballot measure.
“In general, prisons are a huge money-making scheme, not just in terms of forced labor,” DerGarabedian said. “I think [it failed] because certain people benefit from [forced labor in prisons], as well as other forms of money making in prison.”
According to the California Voter Information Guide, any potential fiscal impact of the proposition was not likely to exceed tens of millions of dollars annually. The argument in favor of Prop. 6 said it would save taxpayers money by improving public safety.
Molly Ahyun, a senior majoring in law, history and culture who works with the Prison Education Project, said she thinks people who voted against Prop. 6 may have thought that continuing to force incarcerated people to work could have justified the amount of taxpayer money spent on incarceration each year.
“I think for a lot of people, when they think of incarcerated individuals, they maybe could be upset that their tax money is going … into these systems,” Ahyun said. “And so with that mindset, it’s okay then for them to have to work, because if this is a punishment, they might see that as something that can coincide.”
If Prop. 6 passes, it will go into effect on January 1, but if the current margin holds as votes continue to be counted across the state, that outcome does not seem likely.