Source: ROBYN BECK / Getty
In a not-so-stunning reminder that liberal Democratic states aren’t immune from white supremacist tendencies, California voters have essentially decided slavery is OK as long as the enslaved person has been convicted of a crime.
Some might consider that a hyperbolic statement at best, but, on Nov. 5, voters in The Golden State had an opportunity to vote in favor of Proposition 6, a measure that would have amended the state’s Constitution to remove a provision in the law that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude — except as a punishment for a crime. Instead, they voted “no.”
From the Washington Post:
Tens of thousands of incarcerated people work a range of jobs in California prisons, including fighting the state’s wildfires, packaging nuts, doing dishes, making license plates, sanitizer and furniture for about 74 cents an hour. Prisons are allowed to punish prisoners for not completing work assignments, for example by taking away privileges such as visits from family members.
The ballot measure, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Lori Wilson of Suisun City, would not have ended those jobs but would have made them voluntary and barred punishments for those who refuse to do them.
“This loss wasn’t a statement about where voters’ values lie,” Wilson said. “It was the fault of the campaign for not being able to get the word out. We will bring it back.”
But should it really be necessary to “get the word out” that forced labor is a bad thing even if it’s happening to someone who is in prison for a crime they may have committed?
Esteban Nuñez, a spokesman for the Prop. 6 campaign, appears to agree that the messaging was the issue, not the voters, and that they weren’t able to afford the cost of launching an effective campaign in support of the bill.
“We really did do the best that we could,” Nuñez said. “But a part of the challenge that we always knew we would have would be voter education. There were strained resources, and it was incredibly difficult for us to be able to raise a sufficient amount of money to really get the message out there.”
He also said there were misconceptions about the bill such as the belief that it would completely eliminate the use of labor in the prison system rather than simply make it voluntary, although, the ballot read explicitly and in bold letters that the measure “ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS.”
Perhaps, though, the supposed voter confusion wasn’t accidental. Maybe there were organized opponents of the measure who sowed those misconceptions and made sure all voters knew was that incarcerated people were benefiting from it, not them, and, voila: California can resume forcing people to work under penalty of not being able to see their families and voters can stick their heads back in the sand and pretend they didn’t just vote to make slavery great again.
More from the Post:
Susan Shelley, spokeswoman for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the organization opposed the proposition because of its undetermined fiscal impact on taxpayers.
“The taxpayers of California are already very burdened, and anything that increases that burden by billions of dollars a year concerns this organization,” Shelley said.
The groupwas concerned about how the state would maintain its prisons without the current prisoners who are doing laundry, cleaning and cooking. It found that incentivizing prisoners by paying them more or bringing in outside labor could be costly.
“I would say that voters did not want to be less tough on prisoners,” she said. “Things are tough for a lot of people in California, and I don’t think they felt that the people who most deserve a break are the ones who committed serious crimes.”
Apparently, Shelly and those voters need to be reminded that not every incarcerated person is guilty, not everyone who is guilty was sentenced fairly, and, more to the point, no one — not even the guilty and fairly sentenced — should be forced to do labor they didn’t volunteer to do under any circumstances.
There should be no provisions in an anti-slavery law. That’s where the discussion should have started.
SEE ALSO:
Trump Appoints Systemic Racism-Denying Ex-Cop And ICE Director Thomas Homan As ‘Border Czar’
Trusting White Women Is A Delusional Lost Cause—And History Proves It
Black Running Group Sues Boston Marathon, Police Alleging Racial Profiling
Chick-Fil-A Employee’s Kind Act Turns Into Nine-Year Friendship With Sunday School Teacher Who Lost $1,200
Rep. Jim Jordan: Fani Willis Is Part Of ‘Conspiracy’ To Keep Trump Out Of Office
NABJ Leader Defends Inviting Trump To Black Journalists Convention Amid Growing Outrage
