Why I Plan to Abstain on Constitutional Amendment 7
If you are planning to vote on Tuesday, then you are probably aware of Constitutional Amendment 7, the proposed amendment regarding the exception clause in Louisiana’s state constitution. I didn’t learn about CA 7 until late September from an article posted by The Guardian, a British publication. That article, “’Slavery by any name is wrong’: the push to end forced labor in prisons,” reports that there are constitutional amendments on the ballots in several states which, if adopted, would remove the exception clause from their state constitutions.[1] Louisiana was one of the states mentioned in the article.
Initially, I was pleased to learn I would have the opportunity to vote in favor of this amendment. I believed it would eliminate the exception clause in the Louisiana state constitution. Unfortunately, the news was too good to be true. The language on the referendum just replaces one exception clause with another. Here’s the information from the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office about what will be on the ballot on November 8th:
7. Do you support an amendment to prohibit the use of involuntary servitude except as it applies to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice? (Amends Article I, Section 3) Act 246 (2022 Regular Session)
Present constitution provides that slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, except in the case of involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.
Proposed constitutional amendment changes present law to provide that slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited except for the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice.[2]
What is the difference between “involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime” and “for the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice”? At best, nothing.
According to an October 22nd article in the Advocate, the author of the bill, Representative Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge), attempted to revise the language so it would ban “slavery and involuntary servitude while allowing inmate labor.”[3] Unfortunately, Jordan did not fully understand the implications of the language he agreed to. Allowing “inmate labor” still creates the incentive to imprison people in order to profit from their labor. Jordan now appreciates that the final bill passed by the Louisiana legislature proposes to replace one exception clause with another. He has disavowed his own legislation, fearing that the language on the ballot measure could “be read to permit slavery” rather than prohibit it.
That’s not just Representative Jordan’s assessment. Even proponents of the amendment acknowledge that it will not prohibit forced labor. In a video shared on Instagram, one representative from the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice states unequivocally, “A yes vote eliminates the language but not the practice of involuntary servitude.” Another says, the amendment “ditches the language and maintains the practice.”[4]
I don’t think it’s accurate to say the amendment “eliminates” or “ditches” the language if it also adds similar language. That’s best characterized as a swap. But I’ll try not to quibble since we agree on the most significant point: the amendment maintains the practice of forced labor. In other words, the exception clause remains and those who profit from forced labor will continue to profit from forced labor regardless of the outcome of the vote on CA 7.
And that’s what makes CA 7 so heartbreaking and infuriating and the embodiment of so much of what is wrong in Louisiana. There’s good reason to vote against CA 7, but I dread the headlines that will report that Louisiana voters defeated an amendment which would have eliminated slavery and indentured servitude when that is certainly not the case. If CA 7 is defeated, voters will have rejected a constitutional amendment that would effectively maintain the exception clause and which will likely undermine support for a future amendment that could potentially produce real change.
Once again we have no good options in Louisiana. Whether we vote in favor or we vote against, the outcome regarding forced labor is the same. If we vote against, we may be able to then push for an amendment that legitimately eliminates the exception clause, but we risk being accused of voting to defend slavery.
This is par for the course in Louisiana. The false choice. The appearance of choice where there really is none. And worse, the deceptive, harmful narrative which surrounds it. In Louisiana choices are often manipulated so either outcome benefits the wealthy and powerful who seek to maintain the system that enriches them. And that is certainly the case with CA 7, since either vote maintains the exception clause and those who profit from inmate labor will continue to do so.
But what is even more insidious is the pernicious narrative surrounding the issue. If CA 7 is defeated, the wealthy and powerful have the added benefit of being able to manipulate the narrative to deflect the blame from themselves. This narrative will go something like this: “The rich and powerful who profit from forced labor are not to blame for the failure to eliminate the exception clause. It's the immoral and ignorant people of Louisiana who are to blame. They voted to preserve slavery.” No matter that either vote preserves slavery.
Narratives such as this one are integral to the systemic injustice that persists in Louisiana. The rich and powerful could not maintain the systemic inequality in Louisiana without such narratives. It is important to recognize them for what they are and reject them outright. Some advocates appear to embrace this narrative or believe they can manipulate it to their advantage. “Vote yes on CA 7,” they say. “This will demonstrate support for a new amendment next session.”
That’s unlikely. It’s more likely that if CA 7 passes, the new narrative will embrace the status quo. “No further action is needed,” the narrative will go. “Pay no attention to the forced labor behind the curtain.”
So let me be unequivocally clear: The people who are to blame for the continuation of slavery in Louisiana are the wealthy and powerful, those who profit from forced labor and those who turn a blind eye to such an immoral practice in order to protect their own wealth and power. Do not blame those who vote yes on CA 7. Do not blame those who vote no on CA 7. Blame the wealthy and powerful in Louisiana, especially those who profit from forced labor. They are the ones who are to blame. They are the ones who should hang their heads in shame until the exception clause is truly eliminated. This is the only narrative that will produce real change.
What to do about Constitutional Amendment 7?
A yes vote supports the continuation of slavery.
A no vote supports the continuation of slavery.
I plan to abstain.
[1] Sainato, Michael. “’Slavery by any name is wrong: the push to end forced labor in prisons,” The Guardian, 27 Sept 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/27/slavery-loophole-unpaid-labor-in-prisons
[2] “Statement Of Proposed Constitutional Amendments: November 8, 2022,” State of Louisiana Secretary of State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/ProposedConstitutionalAmendmentsNov2022Summaries.pdf.
[3] Sentell, Will. “Louisiana's voters are being asked to ban slavery in the constitution — or are they?” The Baton Rouge Advocate, 10 Oct 2022. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_214f6070-305a-598d-9168-b2e8d6b786d0.html
[4] Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. Instagram Post, “2022 Election Amendment 7 Explained.” https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ckl8hPbB3UE/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D&fbclid=IwAR00vMw012Eily6mbogSLHObM3A2O1B0zkypo_IArb9tqwasIiBnOyaaplk