ACA 6 proposes an amendment to Section 6 of Article I of the California Constitution to eliminate the longstanding exception that permits involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. The amendment replaces the exception with an explicit, broad prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude “in all forms.”
The measure also adds a narrow clarification allowing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to continue awarding custody or sentencing credits to incarcerated people who voluntarily accept work assignments. The change would become operative January 1, 2027 and, if approved by voters, would change the constitutional baseline that currently underpins prison labor practices in California.
At a Glance
What It Does
ACA 6 deletes the phrase that lets involuntary servitude be used “to punish crime” and instead prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude in all forms under the state constitution. It separately states that CDCR may award credits to incarcerated people who voluntarily take work assignments.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, people incarcerated in state prisons, vendors and contractors that use prison labor, and county jails and programs that model state prison practices. Civil-rights litigators and advocacy groups will also be primary actors in enforcing the new constitutional standard.
Why It Matters
By eliminating the constitutional exception, California would change the legal foundation for compelled prison labor inside the state's jurisdiction and invite new litigation over what counts as voluntary work and permissible incentives. The amendment raises operational and budgetary questions for corrections agencies and private partners that rely on incarcerated labor.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Since California’s original 1849 constitution, the state has mirrored the language of the federal 13th Amendment by banning slavery while explicitly allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. ACA 6 replaces that exception at the state constitutional level by declaring slavery and involuntary servitude unlawful in all forms.
That change elevates the prohibition from statutory policy to the highest state-law standard, meaning state actors must comply or face constitutional challenge.
The measure couples the broad prohibition with a narrow sentence that preserves CDCR’s ability to award credits to incarcerated people who voluntarily accept work assignments. That carve-out is procedural: it preserves a specific incentive tool (credits) but frames the underlying work as voluntary, not compelled.
The amendment does not define “voluntary” or set any administrative standards for how corrections agencies must document voluntariness.Because this is a state constitutional amendment, its practical effect depends on how courts and agencies interpret the new text. Courts will likely be asked to decide what practices amount to coercion versus permissible incentives; agencies will need to revise policies for disciplinary consequences, staffing of essential prison services, and contracts that rely on incarcerated labor.
The text also includes an operative date of January 1, 2027, which limits the amendment’s prospective reach and leaves open questions about ongoing contracts and past practices.Finally, ACA 6 operates alongside federal law. The U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment contains a similar exception for punishment for a crime, so the amendment’s ability to constrain federal actors or certain federally governed practices (for example, federal prisoners) will be limited.
However, California can and often does give broader rights under its own constitution than the federal baseline, so the amendment would bind state institutions and any persons or entities operating under California jurisdiction.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The measure removes the state constitutional phrase permitting involuntary servitude “to punish crime,” replacing it with an explicit prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude “in all forms.”, Subdivision (b) expressly allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award credits to an incarcerated person who voluntarily accepts a work assignment — the bill preserves credits as an incentive but frames work as voluntary.
The amendment includes an operative date: the changes become effective January 1, 2027.
As an Assembly Constitutional Amendment, the change must be placed before voters after a two‑thirds legislative concurrence; if approved by voters it will be part of the state constitution and enforceable in California courts.
The text does not define key terms such as “voluntary” or “involuntary servitude,” leaving scope-of-application questions and enforcement standards to courts and implementing agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature proposes the amendment
The bill opens with legislative findings emphasizing the historical anomaly that California’s constitutional text has allowed involuntary servitude as punishment since 1849 and states the Legislature’s intent that no person in California be subject to slavery or involuntary servitude. These findings establish the policy rationale that will guide interpretation, but they do not change legal rights themselves — the operative change comes in the amended constitutional language that follows.
State constitutional ban on slavery and involuntary servitude
This is the core textual change: the amendment removes the carve-out permitting involuntary servitude as punishment for crime and replaces it with an unconditional prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude in all forms. As a constitutional provision, it creates a primary rule that state actors must follow, and it will be enforceable through constitutional litigation in California courts against state and local agencies performing activities under California jurisdiction.
Permitted awarding of credits for voluntary work
Subdivision (b) clarifies that nothing in the amended section prevents the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from awarding credits to incarcerated people who voluntarily accept work assignments. The clause preserves a specific rehabilitative and administrative tool (custody or sentence credits) but ties it explicitly to voluntariness rather than a framework that could be read to permit compelled labor.
Operative date
The amendment sets an explicit operative date of January 1, 2027. That timing makes the change prospective and gives state agencies a defined window to revise policies and contracts. It also means the provision does not automatically alter conditions that existed prior to that date, although litigation could still examine whether continuing practices after the operative date comply with the new standard.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People incarcerated in California state facilities — gain a clearer constitutional protection against compelled labor inside California’s jurisdiction, which can be the basis for legal challenges to forced or coercive work assignments.
- Civil-rights and prisoner-advocacy organizations — obtain a robust constitutional hook to press for changes to correctional practices, disciplinary regimes, and the elimination of coercive labor.
- Workers and labor advocates outside prisons — could see reduced competition from unpaid or low-paid prison labor and a shift toward civilian hiring for services previously performed by incarcerated people.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation — faces administrative and operational costs to redesign work programs, document voluntariness, and possibly replace labor used for facility upkeep and services.
- Private contractors and state vendors that rely on prison labor — may lose access to low-cost or subsidized labor and have to renegotiate contracts or incur higher labor costs.
- State and local budgets/taxpayers — could face higher costs if paid civilian staff must replace tasks previously completed by incarcerated workers, or if corrections policy changes increase operational expenses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: protect human dignity by banning all forms of slavery and coerced labor, or preserve the practical tools and staffing arrangements corrections systems use to operate and incentivize rehabilitation; the amendment solves for the former but leaves the practicalities of the latter unresolved, forcing courts and agencies to balance constitutional protection against operational realities.
ACA 6 creates clear, hard choices rather than providing operational detail. The amendment elevates a policy preference — no involuntary servitude — into constitutional law but leaves the key questions about scope and enforcement unanswered.
The most immediate ambiguity is voluntariness: the bill preserves credits for voluntary work but does not define how agencies must obtain, record, or verify voluntariness, nor does it set standards for when incentives cross the line into coercion. That gap hands a large interpretive role to courts and to CDCR drafting new regulations.
A second tension is federal-state interaction. The U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment contains a similar exception for punishment for crime; while states can grant broader protections than the federal floor, this amendment cannot bind federal actors or prevent a federal court from interpreting federal law differently.
Practically, ACA 6 will most directly constrain state and local actors and any private entities operating under state contracts, but it may not resolve situations involving federal inmates or federally supervised programs. Finally, the amendment’s prospective operative date and lack of transitional rules create uncertainty about existing contracts, inmate disciplinary policies tied to labor, and remedies for past coercive practices — questions that will spur litigation and require administrative rulemaking.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.