Abolitionists of prison labor face a tough-on-crime voting populace
Activists in progressive California face an unexpected challenge as they strive to eliminate slavery exceptions from state constitutions. They are now deliberating on the most effective approaches to draft upcoming ballot measures.
TroibNews 
LOS ANGELES — The nationwide initiative to eliminate a so-called slavery loophole in state constitutions gained significant traction after voters in eight states, including historically conservative Alabama and Tennessee, moved to eradicate exceptions to the bans on slavery and involuntary servitude established post-Civil War.
However, the effort encountered an unexpected setback this year in progressive California, where a ballot measure aimed at banning forced prison labor was defeated. This loss has left activists across the country struggling to determine the best way to draft constitutional amendments for up to 14 states that could see such proposals on ballots in 2026.
Advocates for the movement are advocating for clear language defining what constitutes involuntary servitude, enabling courts to protect prisoners' rights against forced labor. Simultaneously, campaigners who are aware of voter inclinations toward criminal justice issues prefer straightforward anti-slavery language devoid of complicated specifics relevant to the incarcerated individuals who may benefit from such changes.
“That’s been a big part of our fight, making sure the language is correct,” said Dennis Febo, the New Jersey-based lead organizer for the Abolish Slavery National Network. “The more we’ve done on this question, the more we understand how complicated it is.”
Although the self-identified abolitionist movement initially faced minimal organized resistance, it now navigates internal dynamics while confronting external challenges from a prison industry that perceives these amendments as a threat to its operations, coupled with a shifting political landscape that has made Republican support less certain.
The emergence of new abolitionists is exemplified by Jumoke Emery, whose re-evaluation of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, began in a Colorado jail cell in 2014. After attending protests in Ferguson, Missouri, that gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement, the then-27-year-old organizer was arrested under circumstances he believed were tied to his activism.
“None of it made any sense,” Emery recalled. “I had been handcuffed, wrist to wrist, ankle to ankle, up against the wall. I sat there for hours in the middle of my workday and the only thing I could think of was, ‘This is what it must have felt like to be a slave.’”
After his release, Emery discovered that a “failure to appear” warrant had triggered his arrest, stemming from an old traffic stop due to a burnt-out headlight. The charges had been dismissed, but the warrant remained due to a misnotation of his name; he did not end up paying a fine.
This experience sparked Emery’s interest in addressing abuses within the prison legal system, prompting him to examine the 13th Amendment closely. He zeroed in on its exception: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”
That exception has been mirrored in state constitutions, which allowed southern states in the late 19th century to lease convicts to private companies. Today, states, along with private prison operators, can enforce labor from incarcerated individuals to support government functions and produce goods for external markets. While chattel slavery is no longer legal, activists argue that labor exploitation persists behind bars.
“We don’t have the same kind of abuse anymore, but I think coercion has shifted to subtler mechanisms — things like denying people parole or visitation rights, that are meant to entice people to actually perform labor,” noted Susanne Schwarz, a political science professor at Swarthmore College studying the history of American prison labor.
While some congressional representatives have suggested closing the federal loophole through a constitutional amendment, Emery has focused his efforts on Colorado, where changing the state constitution only requires a simple majority from voters. In 2016, Amendment T sought to remove the slavery exception, but its complicated wording led to its narrow failure. Emery returned in 2018 with the more straightforward Amendment A, collaborated with regional ACLU and NAACP branches, and framed the amendment as a moral necessity to abolish all forms of slavery.
“This campaign is at its most powerful when it’s at its most simple,” said Emery. I don’t think that we need in-depth societal arguments for abolishing slavery. I think it’s as simple as posing the question: Would you like to continue to be a slaveholder, or would you not? Would you like to continue to have slavery, or would you not?”
Kamau Allen, an organizer who assisted Emery at Together Colorado and was involved in the 2018 campaign, explained that the team addressed prison labor only defensively when questions arose. This method proved effective, leading Colorado voters to pass the amendment by a significant margin.
“When you combine the lack of clarity with people’s general distaste for or distrust of incarcerated people, it becomes a very dangerous combination of misinformation,” Allen said. “So the best thing that any campaign in the abolition space can do is take command of the narrative before the confusion gets out.”
Activists from other states noticed this success. Legislators in Utah and Nebraska moved to place slavery bans on ballots in 2020, meeting minimal opposition, and both measures were approved. Utah's Amendment C garnered just over 80 percent of the vote.
The outcomes from those votes and increased interest in criminal justice reform following George Floyd's death triggered a rush for slavery amendments on 2022 midterm ballots. Five states — Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Alabama, and Louisiana — voted on such bans, with all but Louisiana’s passing. The Louisiana amendment included language that allowed for criminal justice operations to continue as usual, leading some activists to view it as a means for officials to maintain the status quo.
“We’re glad,” Febo commented on the Louisiana defeat. “It created another exception.”
Advocates credit their 2022 achievements, especially in conservative states, to widespread bipartisan legislative support. Notably, former U.S. Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee served on the amendment’s advisory committee, remarking that it was “more than timely to strike any reference to slavery from our state constitution.”
“Our message to them was, ‘We need to get rid of this vestige of slavery in our Constitution that doesn’t really do anything, because nobody believes in slavery anymore,’” said Theeda Murphy, who played a key role in the Tennessee campaign.
In California, efforts resulted in an amendment to remove the slavery exception, emphasizing that no one should “be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude.” Supporters aimed to include language addressing prison labor to empower incarcerated individuals to challenge their working conditions legally. The amendment also stipulated that corrections officers “shall not discipline any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment.”
Despite shortcomings in clarity, skeptics acknowledged the need to prevent reclassifying prison work as compensated labor rather than punishment, especially given the state’s estimated increased costs of $1.5 billion annually to pay incarcerated individuals a minimum wage.
“Inmates will sue the state claiming their wages are too low, their hours are too high, or that it is unconstitutional to tie good time credits and early release to their willingness to work,” said Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer.
When brought to voters in November 2024 as Proposition 6, the ballot measure notably omitted the word “slavery.” Instead, it framed the amendment as eliminating the allowance of “involuntary servitude” for incarcerated individuals.
This focus on “involuntary servitude” increased the challenge for campaigners to clarify the amendment's intent to perplexed voters. Although they sought to recast the narrative under the slogan “End Modern-Day Slavery,” the campaign struggled financially to connect with a broader audience.
Initial polling indicated that Prop 6 was struggling to maintain a majority, exacerbated by a concurrent tough-on-crime measure that created an inhospitable atmosphere for discussions of prisoner rights.
Conversely, Nevada voters approved a straightforward proposal labeled as the Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment. Nevada’s Question 4 passed with a commanding lead, while California's Prop 6 fell short by seven points.
Activists believe the contrasting results can be attributed partly to the fact that Nevada's proposal explicitly included the word “slavery,” whereas California's centered on forced prison labor designated as “involuntary servitude.”
“The word ‘slavery’ invokes a stronger emotion,” argued Allen. “It’s more identifiable — there are going to be more people who agree that slavery is wrong than people who agree that involuntary servitude is wrong.”
In mid-November, members of the Abolish Slavery National Network convened virtually. Despite the setback of California's Prop 6, the overall sentiment among activists was one of determination rather than despair.
“This isn’t our first time seeing a ballot measure fail as a network,” mentioned Allen. “We are determined to learn from these setbacks and to know that okay, we are going to fall forward, that this is a teaching moment, that this is a moment for strategy. So what do 2026 and 2028 look like?”
The conference included representatives from around 20 of the network’s more than 30 state-level campaigns. In 14 states, abolitionists are contemplating pursuing amendment proposals, including California, where they aim to refine the proposal for the 2026 ballot with clearer language about slavery.
However, they now face emboldened opposition. Companies invested in the multi-billion dollar prison labor industry and state governments benefiting from what Schwarz described as “shadow revenue” have intensified efforts to prevent the issue from surfacing on state ballots.
“We have many tools in our correctional toolbox,” Cheshire County Department of Corrections Superintendent Doug Iosue told New Hampshire legislators during an April hearing regarding a potential amendment. “The ability to require work for some offenders that might not otherwise choose it is one of those tools. I ask you to please not take away this tool.”
In states that have enacted protections against forced labor assignments in prison, attorneys are actively seeking to enforce the new amendments. They are navigating uncharted legal waters, as existing case law is sparse, and there’s concern that a misjudgment in one state could lead to damaging precedents elsewhere.
“Removing the exception is one thing, but then dismantling the whole apparatus that actually keeps it functional is a whole other thing,” Murphy explained. “And so the next steps involve trying to address the policies, procedures and practices, which we call the badges and incidents of slavery.”
Lawsuits have already been initiated against state governments in Colorado and Alabama, with Tennessee activists preparing for their own legal action. In Alabama, the Center for Constitutional Rights is challenging the state’s penalties imposed on prisoners who refuse to work as a violation of their rights under the 2022 amendment.
“As is the case with many areas of legal reform, changing the letter of the law is not enough,” stated Jessica Vosburgh, an attorney involved in the Alabama case. “You need people who are willing to enforce it and hold state officials to their obligation.”
The legal battle revolves around three state regulations — an executive order by Gov. Kay Ivey, a state statute, and corrections department regulations — which impose penalties on inmates refusing work. Although a circuit court dismissed the suit, proponents have filed an appeal.
The inmates “had been punished and threatened with punishment for not working, which is by definition, slavery and involuntary servitude,” Vosburgh asserted. “Having a job you can't quit — what is that, if not involuntary servitude?”
In New Jersey, where Febo works on drafting an amendment to ensure it appears on the 2026 ballot, he noted that the legal team is currently “stuck” on language. They aim to incorporate more precise definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude to support future lawsuits, though achieving simplicity and clarity remains a challenge.
After discussions about phrasing within the legal committee of the network, which includes lawyers from state campaigns, they plan to hold a conference to brainstorm strategies with scholars to navigate these complex issues going forward.
Having successfully contributed to the passage of Colorado’s Amendment A, Allen has now enrolled in law school, currently in his final year at the University of Wisconsin Madison.
“Part of my reason for coming here was to answer some of the legal questions we had about our campaign,” he reflected. “In hindsight, I see how misinformed people are … One of the things we made very clear in the 2018 campaign is that our biggest opposition is a lack of clarity.”
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
However, the effort encountered an unexpected setback this year in progressive California, where a ballot measure aimed at banning forced prison labor was defeated. This loss has left activists across the country struggling to determine the best way to draft constitutional amendments for up to 14 states that could see such proposals on ballots in 2026.
Advocates for the movement are advocating for clear language defining what constitutes involuntary servitude, enabling courts to protect prisoners' rights against forced labor. Simultaneously, campaigners who are aware of voter inclinations toward criminal justice issues prefer straightforward anti-slavery language devoid of complicated specifics relevant to the incarcerated individuals who may benefit from such changes.
“That’s been a big part of our fight, making sure the language is correct,” said Dennis Febo, the New Jersey-based lead organizer for the Abolish Slavery National Network. “The more we’ve done on this question, the more we understand how complicated it is.”
Although the self-identified abolitionist movement initially faced minimal organized resistance, it now navigates internal dynamics while confronting external challenges from a prison industry that perceives these amendments as a threat to its operations, coupled with a shifting political landscape that has made Republican support less certain.
The emergence of new abolitionists is exemplified by Jumoke Emery, whose re-evaluation of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, began in a Colorado jail cell in 2014. After attending protests in Ferguson, Missouri, that gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement, the then-27-year-old organizer was arrested under circumstances he believed were tied to his activism.
“None of it made any sense,” Emery recalled. “I had been handcuffed, wrist to wrist, ankle to ankle, up against the wall. I sat there for hours in the middle of my workday and the only thing I could think of was, ‘This is what it must have felt like to be a slave.’”
After his release, Emery discovered that a “failure to appear” warrant had triggered his arrest, stemming from an old traffic stop due to a burnt-out headlight. The charges had been dismissed, but the warrant remained due to a misnotation of his name; he did not end up paying a fine.
This experience sparked Emery’s interest in addressing abuses within the prison legal system, prompting him to examine the 13th Amendment closely. He zeroed in on its exception: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”
That exception has been mirrored in state constitutions, which allowed southern states in the late 19th century to lease convicts to private companies. Today, states, along with private prison operators, can enforce labor from incarcerated individuals to support government functions and produce goods for external markets. While chattel slavery is no longer legal, activists argue that labor exploitation persists behind bars.
“We don’t have the same kind of abuse anymore, but I think coercion has shifted to subtler mechanisms — things like denying people parole or visitation rights, that are meant to entice people to actually perform labor,” noted Susanne Schwarz, a political science professor at Swarthmore College studying the history of American prison labor.
While some congressional representatives have suggested closing the federal loophole through a constitutional amendment, Emery has focused his efforts on Colorado, where changing the state constitution only requires a simple majority from voters. In 2016, Amendment T sought to remove the slavery exception, but its complicated wording led to its narrow failure. Emery returned in 2018 with the more straightforward Amendment A, collaborated with regional ACLU and NAACP branches, and framed the amendment as a moral necessity to abolish all forms of slavery.
“This campaign is at its most powerful when it’s at its most simple,” said Emery. I don’t think that we need in-depth societal arguments for abolishing slavery. I think it’s as simple as posing the question: Would you like to continue to be a slaveholder, or would you not? Would you like to continue to have slavery, or would you not?”
Kamau Allen, an organizer who assisted Emery at Together Colorado and was involved in the 2018 campaign, explained that the team addressed prison labor only defensively when questions arose. This method proved effective, leading Colorado voters to pass the amendment by a significant margin.
“When you combine the lack of clarity with people’s general distaste for or distrust of incarcerated people, it becomes a very dangerous combination of misinformation,” Allen said. “So the best thing that any campaign in the abolition space can do is take command of the narrative before the confusion gets out.”
Activists from other states noticed this success. Legislators in Utah and Nebraska moved to place slavery bans on ballots in 2020, meeting minimal opposition, and both measures were approved. Utah's Amendment C garnered just over 80 percent of the vote.
The outcomes from those votes and increased interest in criminal justice reform following George Floyd's death triggered a rush for slavery amendments on 2022 midterm ballots. Five states — Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Alabama, and Louisiana — voted on such bans, with all but Louisiana’s passing. The Louisiana amendment included language that allowed for criminal justice operations to continue as usual, leading some activists to view it as a means for officials to maintain the status quo.
“We’re glad,” Febo commented on the Louisiana defeat. “It created another exception.”
Advocates credit their 2022 achievements, especially in conservative states, to widespread bipartisan legislative support. Notably, former U.S. Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee served on the amendment’s advisory committee, remarking that it was “more than timely to strike any reference to slavery from our state constitution.”
“Our message to them was, ‘We need to get rid of this vestige of slavery in our Constitution that doesn’t really do anything, because nobody believes in slavery anymore,’” said Theeda Murphy, who played a key role in the Tennessee campaign.
In California, efforts resulted in an amendment to remove the slavery exception, emphasizing that no one should “be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude.” Supporters aimed to include language addressing prison labor to empower incarcerated individuals to challenge their working conditions legally. The amendment also stipulated that corrections officers “shall not discipline any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment.”
Despite shortcomings in clarity, skeptics acknowledged the need to prevent reclassifying prison work as compensated labor rather than punishment, especially given the state’s estimated increased costs of $1.5 billion annually to pay incarcerated individuals a minimum wage.
“Inmates will sue the state claiming their wages are too low, their hours are too high, or that it is unconstitutional to tie good time credits and early release to their willingness to work,” said Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer.
When brought to voters in November 2024 as Proposition 6, the ballot measure notably omitted the word “slavery.” Instead, it framed the amendment as eliminating the allowance of “involuntary servitude” for incarcerated individuals.
This focus on “involuntary servitude” increased the challenge for campaigners to clarify the amendment's intent to perplexed voters. Although they sought to recast the narrative under the slogan “End Modern-Day Slavery,” the campaign struggled financially to connect with a broader audience.
Initial polling indicated that Prop 6 was struggling to maintain a majority, exacerbated by a concurrent tough-on-crime measure that created an inhospitable atmosphere for discussions of prisoner rights.
Conversely, Nevada voters approved a straightforward proposal labeled as the Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment. Nevada’s Question 4 passed with a commanding lead, while California's Prop 6 fell short by seven points.
Activists believe the contrasting results can be attributed partly to the fact that Nevada's proposal explicitly included the word “slavery,” whereas California's centered on forced prison labor designated as “involuntary servitude.”
“The word ‘slavery’ invokes a stronger emotion,” argued Allen. “It’s more identifiable — there are going to be more people who agree that slavery is wrong than people who agree that involuntary servitude is wrong.”
In mid-November, members of the Abolish Slavery National Network convened virtually. Despite the setback of California's Prop 6, the overall sentiment among activists was one of determination rather than despair.
“This isn’t our first time seeing a ballot measure fail as a network,” mentioned Allen. “We are determined to learn from these setbacks and to know that okay, we are going to fall forward, that this is a teaching moment, that this is a moment for strategy. So what do 2026 and 2028 look like?”
The conference included representatives from around 20 of the network’s more than 30 state-level campaigns. In 14 states, abolitionists are contemplating pursuing amendment proposals, including California, where they aim to refine the proposal for the 2026 ballot with clearer language about slavery.
However, they now face emboldened opposition. Companies invested in the multi-billion dollar prison labor industry and state governments benefiting from what Schwarz described as “shadow revenue” have intensified efforts to prevent the issue from surfacing on state ballots.
“We have many tools in our correctional toolbox,” Cheshire County Department of Corrections Superintendent Doug Iosue told New Hampshire legislators during an April hearing regarding a potential amendment. “The ability to require work for some offenders that might not otherwise choose it is one of those tools. I ask you to please not take away this tool.”
In states that have enacted protections against forced labor assignments in prison, attorneys are actively seeking to enforce the new amendments. They are navigating uncharted legal waters, as existing case law is sparse, and there’s concern that a misjudgment in one state could lead to damaging precedents elsewhere.
“Removing the exception is one thing, but then dismantling the whole apparatus that actually keeps it functional is a whole other thing,” Murphy explained. “And so the next steps involve trying to address the policies, procedures and practices, which we call the badges and incidents of slavery.”
Lawsuits have already been initiated against state governments in Colorado and Alabama, with Tennessee activists preparing for their own legal action. In Alabama, the Center for Constitutional Rights is challenging the state’s penalties imposed on prisoners who refuse to work as a violation of their rights under the 2022 amendment.
“As is the case with many areas of legal reform, changing the letter of the law is not enough,” stated Jessica Vosburgh, an attorney involved in the Alabama case. “You need people who are willing to enforce it and hold state officials to their obligation.”
The legal battle revolves around three state regulations — an executive order by Gov. Kay Ivey, a state statute, and corrections department regulations — which impose penalties on inmates refusing work. Although a circuit court dismissed the suit, proponents have filed an appeal.
The inmates “had been punished and threatened with punishment for not working, which is by definition, slavery and involuntary servitude,” Vosburgh asserted. “Having a job you can't quit — what is that, if not involuntary servitude?”
In New Jersey, where Febo works on drafting an amendment to ensure it appears on the 2026 ballot, he noted that the legal team is currently “stuck” on language. They aim to incorporate more precise definitions of slavery and involuntary servitude to support future lawsuits, though achieving simplicity and clarity remains a challenge.
After discussions about phrasing within the legal committee of the network, which includes lawyers from state campaigns, they plan to hold a conference to brainstorm strategies with scholars to navigate these complex issues going forward.
Having successfully contributed to the passage of Colorado’s Amendment A, Allen has now enrolled in law school, currently in his final year at the University of Wisconsin Madison.
“Part of my reason for coming here was to answer some of the legal questions we had about our campaign,” he reflected. “In hindsight, I see how misinformed people are … One of the things we made very clear in the 2018 campaign is that our biggest opposition is a lack of clarity.”
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
