Texas voters appeared to support all 17 constitutional amendments on Tuesday’s ballot, as each of the measures — including tax exemptions and bans, a $20 million investment into the state’s water supply, bail reform and dementia research — held strong leads late Tuesday.
With only early votes, mail-in ballots and 30 out of 600 precincts reporting in Harris County just after 11 p.m., it appeared local voters narrowly rejected Proposition 6, which bans new taxes on security transactions, and Proposition 17, a tax exemption for property involved with border security infrastructure near the Texas-Mexico line.
But it’s the statewide numbers that count, and political experts say constitutional amendments rarely fail.
Proposition 1 creates an endowment for 11 Texas State Technical Colleges, including one in Fort Bend County, to purchase loans and buildings. This measure supports a skilled workforce and broader career choices in the college system.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.79 percent approval.
About 66.46 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 2 prohibits the establishment of a capital gains tax on assets like real estate, investments and personal property. Critics say it protects wealthy Texans and could stunt the state’s economic growth.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.19 percent approval.
About 56.6 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 3 requires the denial of bail for individuals accused of violent felony offenses. The measure supports denying bail for high-risk defendants but creates a financial barrier for poor Texans, increasing the likelihood of overcrowded jails and neglect of mental health issues.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 63.66 percent approval.
About 61.01 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 4dedicates the first $1 billion per fiscal year of sales tax revenue exceeding $46.5 billion to the Texas Water Fund over the next 20 years. Voters supported funding to increase the Lone Star State’s water supply and repair aging infrastructure.
Critics expressed concerns about spending mandates in the constitution and whether the funds would be allocated fairly by a three-person board appointed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 70.6 percent approval.
About 67.23 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 5 exempts Texans from taxes on animal feed. The amendment was advertised as potential assistance for farmers and ranchers who are already dealing with rising costs.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 65.78 percent approval.
About 52.22 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 6 bans new taxes on securities transactions and financial market operators (aimed at those who work in the stock market today or will work in the new Texas Stock Trade in Dallas). Critics said this was a tax break for the rich and would benefit only the wealthiest Texans.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 57.92 percent approval.
About 46.2 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 7 provides a property tax exemption for spouses of veterans who died in the line of duty, if the widow or widower has not remarried.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 86.92 percent approval.
About 84.32 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
As of late Tuesday evening, it appeared likely that all 17 constitutional amendments would be approved. Credit: April Towery
Proposition 8 bans taxes on estate and inheritance. Texas does not have estate taxes, and a ban would prevent future regulations that could level the playing field to shift the tax burden from working families to wealthy Texans.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 74.91 percent approval.
About 63.6 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 9 is a tax exemption for up to $125,000 worth of business inventory or equipment. The measure is viewed as an incentive for small businesses that could also help the Texas economy.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 67.1 percent approval.
About 55.88 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 10 is a temporary tax exemption for homeowners whose properties were destroyed by fire. While most property owners have home insurance, this exemption could offer extra support.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 90.18 percent approval.
About 86.87 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 11 increases school property tax exemptions from $10,000 to $60,000 for elderly and disabled homeowners. The amendment provides support for about 2 million homeowners who are likely to be on a fixed income.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 79.55 percent approval.
About 75.38 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 12 expands the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates judicial misconduct and reviews the termination of judgeships. Approval of this measure means new members would have less power than governor-appointed residents, which critics say could politicize the judicial process. Supporters say it will promote accountability.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 64.49 percent approval.
About 54.25 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 13 increases a school property tax exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for all homeowners, saving an average of about $490 per year. The state will pay for an estimated $2.7 billion in revenue losses to school districts for the 2026-27 school year.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 81.78 percent approval.
About 76.01 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 14 will establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, providing $3 billion in funding for dementia research and prevention to study brain-related conditions. Critics have said that brain research should be funded by the private sector.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.13 percent approval.
About 68.24 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 15 codifies “parental rights” language in the state constitution. Critics say this could weaponize the Constitution to propagate right-wing culture wars involving LGBTQ+ families, book bans, and what’s taught in public schools. Parental rights are already outlined in federal case law.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 72.23 percent approval.
About 63.85 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 16 adds citizenship requirements to the Constitution and is redundant because U.S. citizenship is already a requirement to register to vote in Texas. Critics say it is an inflammatory response aligned with anti-immigration policies and stokes fear about non-citizen voting.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 74.94 percent approval.
About 69.37 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 17 provides a tax exemption for property involved with border security infrastructure near the Texas-Mexico line. Critics say this could incentivize support for border security infrastructure and shift the tax burden onto other property owners.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 60.86 percent approval.
About 48.08 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Harris County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth is undeterred by criticism of elections in years past, saying on Monday, the first day of early voting, that her staff is ready and she doesn’t anticipate any major challenges.
At a 10 a.m. press conference, Hudspeth announced that more than 2,000 Harris County voters had already cast ballots.
The November 4 ballot includes 17 constitutional amendments, school board races, an at-large Houston City Council post and the U.S. Congressional District 18 contest. It’s the 12th election Hudspeth has supervised since accusations of election rigging and voter fraud — later found to be meritless — were made in 2022.
Although an investigation by the Texas Rangers found no “widespread fraud,” an audit by the Texas Secretary of State’s office uncovered paper ballot shortages, long wait times and malfunctioning machines in 2022. A state law passed the following year dismantled Harris County’s elections administrator’s office and shifted supervision of elections to the county clerk’s office and voter registration to the tax assessor-collector.
Critics said at the time that Senate Bill 1750, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, was an attempt by Republicans to exert more control over elections in a blue county in a traditionally red state. State inspectors were assigned to monitor the handling and counting of ballots in Harris County in 2024.
Despite the investigation turning up no evidence that any county employees tampered with the election, Hudspeth’s team continues to combat negative publicity. Gov. Greg Abbott took a shot at Harris County elections when he neglected to immediately call a special election after the death of former Houston Mayor and U.S. Congressman Sylvester Turner in March.
“No county in Texas does a worse job of conducting elections than Harris County. They repeatedly fail to conduct elections consistent with state law,” Abbott said in April, when he announced that Turner’s unexpired term would be decided in November. Several candidates in the Congressional District 18 race disputed the claim, praised Hudspeth and said Abbott delayed the election to minimize Democratic representation in Congress.
Hudspeth said Monday the November election offers Harris County voters an opportunity to influence local and statewide policy. Seventy early voting locations will remain open through October 31 and roughly 600 will be available countywide on Election Day.
Tara Nguyern, an outreach specialist in the Harris County Elections Department, displays a map of 70 early voting locations. Credit: April Towery
Hudspeth told the Houston Press last week that “tons of things have been done since 2022” to improve voting process.
When elections were returned to the county clerk’s office in 2023, Hudspeth assessed the equipment and determined what needed to be upgraded.
“We really got down in the trenches of addressing the major concerns that took place in 2022,” she said. “That included software upgrades to reduce the amount of paper [that] voters have to use when it’s time to scan their ballots. We went from two to three pages to just one page. We made sure we overallocated paper documents for every election cycle since then, so we’ve made sure we’ve not repeated those things.”
The clerk then went to the Harris County Commissioners Court and asked for more equipment.
“When you run as many elections as we do in Harris County — back-to-backs, runoffs, specials, primaries — you can’t flip all that equipment around in one swoop to go to the next election,” Hudspeth said. “You’ve got to have enough equipment for one and audit for the next and use additional equipment.”
Elections headquarters has been in a new centralized facility on Morales Road near Bush Intercontinental Airport for about a year. At Monday’s press conference, a call center was already staffed at the headquarters building, taking calls from prospective voters. Hudspeth said her team continues to work with both major political parties and the Secretary of State’s Office when legislative changes occur, and the real heroes are the poll workers.
“Elections simply don’t work without election workers,” she said. “We train these individuals and we provide them with all the resources to be prepared and ready. For a November election, it can take anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 election workers. It is a huge machine. They are the most vital part of this operation.”
“When you see an election worker, tell them thank you,” she added.
Poll worker Leslie Moore sets up a voting booth at the Richard and Meg Weekley Community Center. Credit: April Towery
In addition to providing extensive training, Hudspeth said there are now more technicians at polling places to assess potential problems and deliver materials if needed.
“Oh, like, if they run out of paper?” a reporter asked.
“They’re not going to run out of paper,” a staffer from Hudspeth’s office responded.
The clerk pointed out that there’s no such thing as a flawless election but said she does not “anticipate any issues.”
“One thing is for sure: every election cycle we learn something,” she said. “In terms of the voting machines, all those machines are audited and worked on. We have measures in place and we have technical support teams in clusters around the county. If something needs to be addressed or taken care of, we’re able to do it in real time.”
“[There have been] no hiccups, no concerns, and look, if something comes up, we have technical individuals in the field,” she added. “We have dispatch units all over the place. Our teams are working really hard day and night.”
Hudspeth encouraged Harris County residents to read published voter guides and study the sample ballots at harrisvotes.com before they go to the polls. The clerk also noted that while a mid-decade redistricting effort was approved by the Texas Legislature this summer, the Congressional District 18 boundaries remain the same as they have been for several election cycles.
“Those changes will not take place until 2026,” she said. “If you live in and have registered in CD 18, the maps have not changed. If there is a runoff, the maps will also stay the same.”
Those who are eligible to vote remotely have until Friday, October 24, to fill out the paperwork to receive a ballot in the mail, Hudspeth said. The next couple of weeks will be busy for the county clerk, but she said she has no doubt that she, with the help of “a huge village of people,” can pull it off.
“Part of running elections is that it’s just kind of in your blood,” Hudspeth said. “No matter how tired you are, it’s just like this timer goes off and it’s like, OK, it’s go time.”
Seventeen constitutional amendments — characterized by government watchdogs as property tax cuts for homeowners, tax bans for the wealthy and a few niche items like bail reform and parental rights — will be decided in the coming weeks, as early voting begins Monday, October 20.
No matter their ZIP code, all Texans get to vote on the amendments. Some Harris County residents will also be deciding school board seats, a member of U.S. Congress and an at-large Houston City Council post.
Early voting extends through October 31, and Election Day is November 4. Sample ballots and early voting locations are posted at harrisvotes.com.
Harris County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth said new equipment has been tested and software has been upgraded to reduce the amount of paper used in elections. Hudspeth’s staff visited several of the 70 early voting sites on Friday to assist poll workers with setup.
“We are as ready as ready can be,” Hudspeth said. “We don’t wake up two or three months before an election and start running it. Essentially while we’re running a November election, we’re preparing for the midterms next year.”
Hudspeth said she’s reminding Harris County residents that their vote matters, as constitutional amendment elections don’t typically produce large turnouts.
University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus said many of the constitutional amendments on the ballot were born out of Republican legislation that didn’t move forward in the most recent session, but a supermajority, or a two-thirds vote, is required to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot — so there is some bipartisan consensus that these are measures worth considering.
“Traditionally, people are pretty favorable to constitutional amendments,” Rottinghaus said. “Upwards of 90 percent of them pass. Obviously, the ones that are tax-based are the ones that pass by the most significant margin. About 98 percent of those pass. The ones that change the structure of government don’t pass as frequently.”
The state legislature already slashed $51 billion in property taxes for the next two years, but more cuts could be on the way. Owners of homes with taxable values of $200,000 or less could end up paying $0 in school taxes if they’re over 65 or disabled.
Proposition 13 increases the school tax exemption for homeowners from $100,000 to $140,000. Proposition 11 increases the school tax exemption for senior citizens and the disabled from $10,000 to $60,000. Therefore, if both amendments pass, senior citizens and the disabled could have a $200,000 homestead tax exemption.
Tax cuts aren’t usually controversial but law requires that the state reimburse school districts for any lost revenue due to the increased exemptions, said Andrew Schneider, a politics and government reporter for NPR affiliate Houston Public Media on the Houston Matters radio show.
“As a result, if the state cuts funding to education in future budget cycles as it did notably 20 years ago, school districts would be forced to cut spending as well,” he said.
Rottinghaus said Texas Republicans, in general, hope to reduce or eliminate taxes for some populations, such as the elderly.
“That’s not practically possible,” he said. “The state still needs revenue for various things, and this is the compromise tax system that they’ve settled on. This is the one that’s become the most politically palatable.”
“In principle, the way this works is that it just constrains what local governments are able to raise in the future,” he added. “So either these local governments go without that revenue, or the state will offer money to make up the difference. In most of these cases, this is just simply money that the local governments are going to have to live without. It’s not a lot of money at the end of the day, but it adds up.”
Ten of the 17 propositions deal with taxes, with exemptions proposed not just for senior citizens but also spouses of veterans, businesses, animal feed and land being used for border security infrastructure.
Poll worker Paulette King puts together signs for the a polling place in anticipation of early voting beginning October 20. Credit: April Towery
Property tax cuts have been heavily supported by Houston Republican Senators Joan Huffman and Paul Bettencourt. Huffman, who serves as chair of the Senate Finance Committee chair, is currently campaigning for Texas attorney general on a platform of fiscal conservatism and public safety.
The Senate’s budget for the 2026-27 biennium included $32 billion in property tax cuts, Huffman announced in January.
“Our economy is strong and continues to grow,” she said at the time. “We again have the opportunity to make strategic, one-time investments to address long-standing needs of our growing state, as well as return money back to taxpayers in the form of additional property tax relief.”
Tax Bans
Houston Progressive Caucus cofounder Karthik Soora has urged his organization’s members to vote against three constitutional amendments that he says are designed to provide tax breaks to people like Texas billionaire Elon Musk.
Texas already banned “any sort of wealth tax” in a previous election, so these three measures — Propositions 2, 6 and 8 — are just further ensuring that the rich don’t have to pay taxes, Soora said.
“The average Texan, if you were lucky enough to own a house, that’s where you have your property. Maybe you have a tiny amount of stock,” Soora said. “The average American does not hold that much stock.”
Proposition 2, the capital gains tax ban, would prohibit the state from taxing people or businesses on profits from capital assets such as investments and real estate. It also forfeits a franchise tax on business trusts, meaning the state will lose about $152,000 in revenue per year, according to the state comptroller’s office.
Texas Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, who authored the legislation, has said that a franchise tax on business trusts could be construed as a capital gains tax, undermining economic competitiveness.
Soora disputes that claim and noted that, with about 30 reported billionaires in the Greater Houston area, it will cost working class Texans billions “down the line, at a time when people don’t have enough money for healthcare or childcare or affordable housing in Houston.”
“We’re all paying our fair share and more. Why can’t the super wealthy?” he said.
Proposition6, the securities tax ban, would prohibit the state from taxing securities transactions like stocks and bonds but that’s not a current practice in Texas.
The amendment was prompted by a new stock exchange slated to open next year in Dallas. Supporters say it will protect investments. Critics say the state could benefit from securities taxes if it needs to raise more revenue in the future.
Proposition8, the inheritance tax ban, would prohibit the legislature from “imposing death taxes” in the transfer of an estate, inheritance or gift. It would not eliminate other taxes that can be associated with an inheritance, such as unpaid property taxes.
Rottinghaus said the three tax bans are “messaging amendments.”
“These are ways to get the voters to buy into the idea of having reduced taxes or no taxes on some things,” Rottinghaus said. “The state has done this before. They put bans on things that are already banned or would never be done. So it’s a political tool to communicate the preferences of the state to and have the voter certify it.”
“The other thing it does is this hardens the ability of future legislatures to make big changes to tax policy,” he added. “Getting the Constitution changed to allow for capital gains taxes would be a challenge. So if future legislatures wanted to raise revenue that way, they’d have to go through another step to make that happen.”
Soora said it appears to be an attempt to confuse voters with flowery language.
“What are unrealized gains?” he said. “The vast majority of people can’t necessarily tell you. They do this to confuse people so billionaires get richer. If people explain stuff then Texans aren’t just going to get fooled and bamboozled so easily. They’ll know when people are taking them for a ride.”
With the proper amount of voter education, there’s a possibility these three amendments could be voted down, Soora added.
“The average person would think that, if I have to pay taxes on my house, why does Elon Musk and every other Texas billionaire get exempt from all taxation on all of their wealth? And then their children will inherit all of that wealth, all of that stock, without having paid a single cent like other taxpayers.”
Soora said his organization made endorsements on various school board and city council races and is backing Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee for U.S. Congressional District 18, but the three tax bans are the only constitutional amendments they’ve publicly commented on.
“We wanted to focus on those three just because we think the super rich and powerful always have a way of dominating the media landscape and they try to distract everyone with culture wars,” he said. “We wanted to focus on these three in particular because we think they tell a story of the wealthy trying to disenfranchise Texans and make them pay more out of their pockets.”
Border Security Tax Exemption
Proposition17 would allow the state to prevent increased property values in border counties due to security infrastructure and related improvements.
It could minimally reduce local tax revenue but Rottinghaus said the amendment is likely an effort to give tax incentives to people who are being politically courted by Republicans.
“The state has been trying to carve off certain groups to give tax breaks to,” he said. “In this case, it’s both about the border and opportunities to expand the political footprint in the Rio Grande Valley.”
Proponents say it will address concerns that border security infrastructure added to private land by the state could increase that property’s appraisal and burden on its owners. Critics say the state should not incentivize more border security infrastructure on private land.
Codifying Parental Rights
Proposition 15 essentially makes it law that parents are the primary decision-makers for their children. It affirms that “a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing.”
The bill’s author, Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, has said the intent of the amendment is to protect parental rights because “case law can change and disappear over time with the appointment of new judges.”
Rottinghaus said this amendment “attempts to make it clear that this is a priority for the state and especially the Republican party.”
“It doesn’t seem to do much more than what’s already on the books, but it is a messaging moment for Republicans to be able to say that they are supportive of these kinds of laws,” he said.
“This has been on the Republican agenda for a couple of cycles,” he added. “It seems that this peaked when there were concerns about library books. It seems late to that game, which is something they fought about this last session. But I think it’s probably something that’s more about the roles of school boards and local efforts to manage what kids in school can see and do.”
Bail Reform
Proposition 3, advertised as “bail reform,” was proposed by Republican lawmakers, including Senator Huffman, who has said that, over the past four years, 162 people were murdered in Harris County by defendants who were out on bond.
If Prop 3 passes, judges will be required to deny bail in certain cases for people who have committed murder, aggravated assault and indecency with a child. The state would have to show that “bail is not enough to prevent the defendant from being a flight or public safety risk,” according to an analysis in the Texas Tribune.
Rottinghaus said the impetus for bail reform began in Harris County and is a priority for Huffman, a former Harris County prosecutor, and Gov. Greg Abbott.
“These stories about people committing crimes [while out] on bail definitely have political resonance,” Rottinghaus said. “It’s definitely connected to the perception that crime is on the rise. This is an Abbott initiative that didn’t get much legislative traction, so pushing it to voters is a way to get the policy passed. It’s also a way for Republicans to take credit for addressing crime, and that’s something that’s on people’s minds.”
Harris County’s Democratic judges have been scrutinized for being soft on crime and setting bonds for those accused of violent crimes, but there’s a lot of misinformation surrounding the issue, said Brent Mayr, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association. For example, several media outlets reported in August that District Judge Nata Cornelio “illegally” set bond for Jared Wilson on an aggravated robbery charge.
That didn’t happen, Mayr said, explaining that the 21-year-old Wilson was on probation for a different offense when he was arrested again.
Andy Kahan, director of victim services and advocacy for CrimeStoppers of Houston has been particularly critical of Democratic judges and serves on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.. Proposition 12 would overhaul the commission makeup and change how the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court selects review tribunals.
“It gives the governor more control over the people on that committee, so it’s possible that some of this shifts the courts into a more partisan world,” Rottinghaus said.
A July survey conducted by Texas Southern University researchers found that less than half of respondents felt “very safe when outside and alone in their neighborhood during the day.” Most were concerned about crime affecting them or a family member.
“They believe that Harris County judges are too lenient in their sentencing except in regard to drug crimes,” Rice University political science professor Mark Jones said at the time. “From a political perspective as well as a societal perspective, perception becomes reality. That is, if people perceive there to be a crime problem, there is a crime problem.”
The Texas Constitution allows most defendants the right to be released on bail unless they’re charged with capital murder or accused of certain repeat felonies. The proposed amendment widens the criteria, and critics say it leads to overcrowded jails and doesn’t actually improve public safety.
Rottinghaus said the practical implications are serious. “There’s pressure on the county jails when it comes to budgets and population,” he said. “So more denials might mean more defendants are held pretrial, which could increase the cost of housing individuals in these jails, leading to overcrowding. That’s a recipe for problems at jails that many big urban counties are facing.”
A bill that would exclude noncitizens from the U.S. Census count that determines the number of congressional seats in each state has spurred misleading claims online.
“In case you missed it, every single Democrat in the House just voted for illegal immigrants to count toward representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” a woman in an Instagram video says. She continues, “If the legal citizens won’t vote for you, and having the dead people attempt to vote for you isn’t working, bring in, just bring in the illegals.”
The video includes a screenshot of an article from the Not the Bee, a news website that is an offshoot of satirical website The Babylon Bee.
This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)
The full article references the Equal Representation Act, a bill that would add a citizenship question to the U.S. Census to exclude noncitizens from the population count that determines congressional apportionment. Noncitizens are now counted in the census and have been for more than 200 years.
No Democrats voted in favor of the bill. The bill’s critics said excluding noncitizens from Congressional apportionment violates the Constitution.
The U.S. Census has always counted noncitizens, and in voting against the Equal Representation Act, Democrats opted to keep the system as is. The bill passed with a majority in the House of Representatives and has been sent to the Senate.
The U.S. House of Representatives has 435 seats. Each state automatically receives one seat, and the remaining seats are allocated based on population size as reported in the U.S. Census, which is conducted every 10 years. The number of electoral votes allocated to each state is also based on the census.
Thomas Wolf, democracy initiatives director at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, said the U.S. Census has counted every person living in the U.S., regardless of citizenship status, since the first census was conducted in 1790. He said the only exceptions were Native Americans who were not taxed and therefore were not counted, and enslaved people who were counted as three-fifths of a person until the passage of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Since 1790, the census has also been used to determine the number of seats each state has in the House of Representatives.
Dan Vicuña, the redistricting and representation director at Common Cause, a voting rights group, told PolitiFact, “Making residents of the United States invisible for the purposes of congressional apportionment would be a clear violation of the U.S. constitution.”
The 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says representatives should be apportioned to states based on the “whole number” of people in each state, and it does not make exceptions for people’s immigration status.
Wolf sent us an amicus brief that census historians wrote when Trump’ tried changing redistricting processes; the brief said excluding immigrants in the U.S. illegally from congressional apportionment violates the Constitution.
PolitiFact found that excluding noncitizens from congressional apportionment would not necessarily benefit Democratic-led states. Republican-led states have experienced significant increases in immigrant populations in recent years.
For the 150 or so people who filled a church hall in Toledo, Ohio, for a Thursday-night campaign rally last week, the chant of the evening featured a profanity usually discouraged in a house of God.
“With all due respect, pastor, hell no!” shouted Betty Montgomery, a former Ohio attorney general. Montgomery is a Republican, which gave the largely Democratic audience even more reason to roar with approval. They had gathered at the Warren AME Church, in Toledo, to voice their opposition to a constitutional amendment that Ohio voters will approve or reject in a statewide referendum on August 8. Many of those in the boisterous crowd were experiencing a feeling unfamiliar to Democrats in the state over the past decade: optimism.
If enacted, the Republican-backed proposal known as Issue 1 would raise the bar for any future changes to the state constitution. Currently, constitutional amendments in Ohio—including the one on next week’s ballot—need only a bare majority of voters to pass; the proposal seeks to make the threshold a 60-percent supermajority.
In other years, a rules tweak like this one might pass without much notice. But next week’s referendum has galvanized Democratic opposition inside and outside Ohio, turning what the GOP had hoped would be a sleepy summertime election into an expensive partisan proxy battle. Conservatives have argued that making the constitution harder to amend would protect Ohio from liberal efforts to raise the minimum wage, tighten gun laws, and fight climate change. But the Republican-controlled legislature clearly timed this referendum to intercept a progressive march on one issue in particular: Ohioans will decide in November whether to make access to abortion a constitutional right, and the outcome of next week’s vote could mean the difference between victory and defeat for backers of abortion rights.
A year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the back-to-back votes will also test whether abortion as an issue can still propel voters to the polls in support of Democratic candidates and causes. If the abortion-rights side wins next week and in November, Ohio would become the largest GOP-controlled state to enshrine abortion protections into law. The abortion-rights movement is trying to replicate the success it found last summer in another red state, Kansas, where voters decisively rejected an amendment that would have allowed the legislature to ban abortion, presaging a midterm election in which Democrats performed better than expected in states where abortion rights were under threat.
To prevent Democratic attempts to circumvent conservative state legislatures, Republican lawmakers have sought to restrict ballot initiatives across the country. Similar efforts are under way or have already won approval in states including Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and Idaho. But to Democrats in Ohio and beyond, the August special election is perhaps the most brazen effort yet by Republicans to subvert the will of voters. Polls show that in Ohio, the abortion-rights amendment is likely to win more than 50 percent of the vote, as have similar ballot measures in other states. For Republicans to propose raising the threshold three months before the abortion vote in November looks like a transparent bid to move the proverbial goalposts right when their opponents are about to score.
“I don’t think I’ve seen such a naked attempt to stay in power,” a former Democratic governor of Ohio, Dick Celeste, told the church crowd in Toledo. As in Kansas a year ago, the Republican majority in the state legislature scheduled the referendum for August—a time when the party assumed turnout would be low and favorable to their cause. (Adding to the Democratic outrage is the fact that just a few months earlier, Ohio Republicans had voted to restrict local governments from holding August elections, because they tend to draw so few people.) “They’re trying to slip it in,” Kelsey Suffel, a Democratic voter from Perrysburg, told me after she had cast an early vote.
That Ohio Republicans would try a similar gambit so soon after the defeat their counterparts suffered in Kansas struck many Democrats as a sign of desperation. “The winds of change are blowing,” Celeste said in Toledo. “They’re afraid, and they should be afraid, because the people won’t tolerate it.”
The upcoming vote will serve as an important measure of strength for Ohio Democrats ahead of elections in the state next year that could determine control of Congress. Democrats have had a long losing streak in Ohio. Donald Trump easily won the state in 2016 and 2020, and Republicans have won every statewide office except for that of Senator Sherrod Brown, who faces reelection next year. Still, there’s reason to believe Celeste is right to be optimistic. A Suffolk University poll released last week found that 57 percent of registered voters planned to vote against Issue 1. (A private survey commissioned by a nonpartisan group also found the August amendment losing, a Republican who had seen the results told me on the condition of anonymity.) Early-voting numbers have swamped predictions of low participation in an August election, suggesting that abortion remains a key motivator for getting people to turn out. Groups opposing the amendment have significantly outspent supporters of the change.
Abortion isn’t explicitly on the ballot in Ohio next week, but the clear linkage between this referendum and the one on reproductive rights in November has divided the Republican coalition. Although the state’s current Republican governor, Mike DeWine, backs Issue 1, the two living GOP former governors, Bob Taft and John Kasich, oppose it as an overreach by the legislature.
“That’s the giant cloud on this issue,” Steve Stivers, a former Republican member of Congress who now heads the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, told me. The Chamber of Commerce backs the amendment because, as Stivers said, it’ll help stop “bad ideas” such as raising the minimum wage, marijuana legalization, and proposals supported by organized labor. But, he said, many of his members were worried that the group would be dragged into a fight over abortion, on which it wants to stay neutral: “The timing is not ideal.”
Democrats have highlighted comments from Republicans who have departed from the party’s official message and drawn a connection between the August referendum and the abortion vote this fall. “They’ve all said the quiet part out loud, which is this election is 100 percent about trying to prevent abortion rights from having a fair election in the fall,” the state Democratic chair, Liz Walters, told me.
But to broaden its coalition, opponents of the amendment have advanced a simpler argument—preserve “majority rule”—that also seems to be resonating with voters. “I’m in favor of democracy,” explained Ed Moritz, an 85-year-old retired college professor standing outside his home in Cleveland, when I asked him why he was planning to vote no. Once a national bellwether, Ohio has become close to a one-party state in recent years. For Democrats, citizen-led constitutional amendments represent one of the few remaining checks on a legislature dominated by Republicans. Moritz noted that the GOP had already gerrymandered the Ohio legislature by drawing maps to ensure its future majorities. “This,” he said, “is an attempt to gerrymander the entire population.”
To Frank LaRose, the suggestion that Issue 1 represents an assault on democracy is “hyperbole.” LaRose is Ohio’s Republican secretary of state and, of late, the public face of Issue 1. Traversing Ohio over the past few weeks, he’s used the suddenly high-profile campaign as a launching pad for his bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in 2024.
LaRose, 44, served for eight years in the state Senate before becoming Ohio’s top elections officer in 2019. (He won a second term last year.) He’s a smooth debater and quick on his feet, but on the Issue 1 campaign, he’s not exactly exuding confidence.
In an interview, he began by rattling off a litany of complaints about the opposition’s messaging, which he called “intentionally misleading.” LaRose accused Issue 1’s opponents of trying to bamboozle conservative voters with literature showing images of the Constitution being cut to pieces and equating the amendment with “Stop the Steal.” “That’s completely off base,” he said. “We’ve had to compete with that and with a mountain of money that they’ve had, and with a pretty organized and intentional effort by the media on this.”
LaRose likes to remind people that even if voters approve Issue 1, citizens would still be able to pass, with a simple majority, ballot initiatives to create or repeal statutes in Ohio law. The August proposal applies only to the state constitution, which LaRose said is not designed for policy making. Left unsaid, however, is that unlike an amendment to the constitution, any statutory change approved by the voters could swiftly be reversed by the Republican majority in the legislature.
“Imagine if the U.S. Constitution changed every year,” he said. “What instability would that create? Well, that’s what’s at risk if we don’t pass Issue 1.” LaRose’s argument ignored the fact that Ohio’s rules for constitutional amendments have been in place for more than a century and, during that time, just 19 of the 77 changes proposed by citizen petitions have passed. (Many others generated by the legislature have won approval by the voters.)
LaRose has been spending a lot of his time explaining the amendment to confused voters, including Republicans. When I spoke with him last weekend, he had just finished addressing about two dozen people inside a cavernous 19th-century church in Steubenville. He described his stump speech as a “seventh-grade civics class” in which he explained the differences between the rarely amended federal Constitution and Ohio’s routinely amended founding document. The laws that Ohio could be saddled with if the voters reject Issue 1, LaRose warned, went far beyond abortion: “It’s every radical West Coast policy that they can think of that they want to bring to Ohio.”
The challenges LaRose has faced in selling voters on the proposal soon became apparent. When I asked a pair of women who had questioned LaRose during his speech whether he had persuaded them, one simply replied, “No.” Another frustrated attendee who supported the proposal told LaRose that she had encountered voters who didn’t understand the merits of the idea.
Republicans have had to spend more time than they’d like defending their claim that Issue 1 is not simply an effort to head off November’s abortion amendment. They have also found themselves playing catch-up on an election that they placed on the ballot. “They got out of the gate earlier than our side,” the state Republican Party chair, Alex Triantafilou, told me, referring to an early round of TV ads that opposition groups began running throughout the state.
The GOP’s struggle to sell its proposal to voters adds to the perception that the party, in placing the measure on the ballot, was acting not from a position of strength but of weakness. The thinly disguised effort to preempt a simple-majority vote on abortion is surely a concession by Republicans that they are losing on the issue even in what has become a reliably red state.
When I asked LaRose to respond to the concerns about abortion that Stivers reported from his members in the Chamber of Commerce, he lamented that it was another example of businesses succumbing to “cancel culture.”
Confidence can be dangerous for a Democrat in Ohio. Barack Obama carried the state twice, but in both 2016 and 2020, late polls showing a tight race were proved wrong by two eight-point Trump victories. A similar trajectory played out last year, when the Republican J. D. Vance pulled away from the Democrat Tim Ryan in the closing weeks to secure a seven-point victory in Ohio’s Senate race.
“Democrats in the state are beaten down,” says Matt Caffrey, the Columbus-based organizing director for Swing Left, a national group that steers party donors and volunteers to key races across the country. He’s seen the decline firsthand, telling me of the challenge Democrats have had in recruiting canvassers and engaging voters who have grown more discouraged with each defeat.
That began to change this summer, Caffrey told me. Volunteers have flocked to canvassing events in large numbers, some for the first time—a highly unusual occurrence for a midsummer special election, he said. At a canvass launch I attended in Akron over the weekend, more than three dozen people showed up, including several first-timers. As I followed Democratic canvassers there and in Cleveland over two days last week, not a single voter who answered their door was unaware of the election or undecided about how they’d vote. “It’s kind of an easy campaign,” Michael Todd, a canvasser with the group Ohio Citizen Action in Cleveland, told me. “Not a whole lot of convincing needs to be done.”
The response has prompted some Democrats to see the August election as an unexpected opportunity to reawaken a moribund state party. The referendum is a first for Swing Left, which has exclusively invested in candidate races since it formed after Trump’s victory in 2016. “It’s a great example of what we’re seeing across the country, which is the fight for reproductive freedom and the fight for democracy becoming closely attached,” the group’s executive director, Yasmin Radjy, told me in Akron. “We also think it’s really important to build momentum in Ohio, a state that we need to keep investing in.”
A win next week would make the abortion referendum a heavy favorite to pass in November. And although Ohio is unlikely to regain its status as a presidential swing state in 2024, it could help determine control of Congress. Brown’s bid for a fourth term is expected to be one of the hardest-fought Senate races in the country, and at least three Ohio districts could be up for grabs in the closely divided House.
For Democrats like Caffrey, the temptation to think bigger about a comeback in Ohio is tempered by the lingering uncertainty about next week’s outcome—whether the party will finally close out a victory in a state that has turned red, or confront another disappointment. “It would be hard for Democrats in Ohio to feel complacent. I wish we would be in a position to feel complacent,” Caffrey said with a smile. “This is more about building hope.”
Today is Friday, Nov. 4, the 308th day of 2022. There are 57 days left in the year.
Today’s Highlight in History:
On Nov. 4, 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli minutes after attending a festive peace rally.
On this date:
In 1842, Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd in Springfield, Illinois.
In 1879, humorist Will Rogers was born in Oologah, Oklahoma.
In 1922, the entrance to King Tutankhamen’s tomb was discovered in Egypt.
In 1942, during World War II, Axis forces retreated from El Alamein in North Africa in a major victory for British forces commanded by Lt. Gen. Bernard Montgomery.
In 1956, Soviet troops moved in to crush the Hungarian Revolution.
In 1979, the Iran hostage crisis began as militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran, seizing its occupants; for some of them, it was the start of 444 days of captivity.
In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan won the White House as he defeated President Jimmy Carter by a strong margin.
In 1985, to the shock and dismay of U.S. officials, Soviet defector Vitaly Yurchenko announced he was returning to the Soviet Union, charging he had been kidnapped by the CIA.
In 1991, Ronald Reagan opened his presidential library in Simi Valley, California; attending were President George H.W. Bush and former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald R. Ford and Richard Nixon — the first-ever gathering of five past and present U.S. chief executives.
In 2007, King Tutankhamen’s face was unveiled for the first time to the public more than 3,000 years after the pharaoh was buried in his Egyptian tomb.
In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama was elected the first Black president of the United States, defeating Republican John McCain. California voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, overturning a state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months earlier.
In 2020, a day after the presidential election, victories in Michigan and Wisconsin left Joe Biden one battleground state short of winning the White House. President Donald Trump falsely claimed victory in several key states and called the election process “a major fraud on our nation.”
Ten years ago: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said cold temperatures would leave “tens of thousands” of people whose homes were damaged by Superstorm Sandy in need of alternate housing. A 2-year-old boy was mauled to death by a pack of African wild dogs when he fell into their pen from a viewing area at the Pittsburgh Zoo.
Five years ago: China’s rubber-stamp legislature made it a criminal offense to disrespect the country’s national anthem, punishable by up to three years in prison; the move came amid rising nationalist appeals from the ruling Communist Party. Saudi Arabian authorities began a wave of arrests of dozens of the country’s most powerful princes, military officers, businessmen and government ministers in a purported anti-corruption sweep; they included potential rivals or critics of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
One year ago: The Biden administration issued a rule requiring tens of millions of Americans who worked at companies with 100 or more employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or get tested for the virus weekly. (The Supreme Court rejected that rule in January 2022, finding that the administration had overstepped its authority.) The Biden administration sued Texas over new voting rules, saying that the restrictions surrounding mail-in voting requirements and voter assistance violated federal civil rights protections. A Texas real estate agent, Jennifer Leigh Ryan, who bragged she wasn’t going to jail for storming the U.S. Capitol because she was white, had blond hair and had a good job, was sentenced to two months behind bars. Drug gang gunmen stormed ashore at a beach on Mexico’s resort-studded Caribbean coast in front of luxury hotels and executed two drug dealers from a rival gang.
Today’s Birthdays: Actor Loretta Swit is 85. R&B singer Harry Elston (Friends of Distinction) is 84. Blues singer Delbert McClinton is 82. Former first lady Laura Bush is 76. Actor Ivonne Coll is 75. Rock singer-musician Chris Difford (Squeeze) is 68. Country singer Kim Forester (The Forester Sisters) is 62. Actor-comedian Kathy Griffin is 62. Actor Ralph Macchio is 61. “Survivor” host Jeff Probst is 61. Actor Matthew McConaughey is 53. Rapper-producer Sean “Puffy” Combs is 53. TV personality Bethenny Frankel is 52. Actor Anthony Ruivivar is 52. Soul/jazz singer Gregory Porter is 51. Celebrity chef Curtis Stone is 47. Actor Heather Tom is 47. R&B/gospel singer George Huff is 42. Actor Emme Rylan is 42. Actor Chris Greene (Film: “Loving”) is 40.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — More than 150 years after slaves were freed in the U.S., voters in five states will soon decide whether to close loopholes that led to the proliferation of a different form of slavery — forced labor by people convicted of certain crimes.
None of the proposals would force immediate changes inside the states’ prisons, though they could lead to legal challenges related to how they use prison labor, a lasting imprint of slavery’s legacy on the entire United States.
The effort is part of a national push to amend the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that banned enslavement or involuntary servitude except as a form of criminal punishment. That exception has long permitted the exploitation of labor by convicted felons.
“The idea that you could ever finish the sentence ‘slavery’s okay when … ’ has to rip out your soul, and I think it’s what makes this a fight that ignores political lines and brings us together, because it feels so clear,” said Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises, a criminal justice advocacy group pushing to remove the amendment’s convict labor clause.
Nearly 20 states have constitutions that include language permitting slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. In 2018, Colorado was the first to remove the language from its founding frameworks by ballot measure, followed by Nebraska and Utah two years later.
This November, versions of the question go before voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont.
Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Democrat from Memphis, was shocked when a fellow lawmaker told her about the slavery exception in the Tennessee Constitution and immediately began working to replace the language.
“When I found out that this exception existed, I thought, ‘We have got to fix this and we’ve got to fix this right away,’” she said. “Our constitution should reflect the values and the beliefs of our state.”
Constitutions require lengthy and technically tricky steps before they can be tweaked. Akbari first proposed changes in 2019; the GOP-dominant General Assembly then had to pass the changes by a majority vote in one two-year legislative period and then pass it again with at least two-thirds approval in the next. The amendment could then go on the ballot in the year of the next gubernatorial election.
Akbari also had to work with the state Department of Correction to ensure that inmate labor wouldn’t be prohibited under her proposal.
The proposed language going before Tennessean voters more clearly distinguishes between the two: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.”
“We understand that those who are incarcerated cannot be forced to work without pay, but we should not create a situation where they won’t be able to work at all,” Akbari said.
Similar concerns over the financial impact of prison labor led California’s Democratic-led Legislature to reject an amendment eliminating indentured servitude as a possible punishment for crime after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration predicted it could require the state to pay billions of dollars at minimum wage to prison inmates.
Scrutiny over prison labor has existed for decades, but the 13th Amendment’s loophole in particular encouraged former Confederate states after the Civil War to devise new ways to maintain the dynamics of slavery. They used restrictive measures, known as the “Black codes” because they nearly always targeted Black people, to criminalize benign interactions such as talking too loudly or not yielding on the sidewalk. Those targeted would end up in custody for minor actions, effectively enslaving them again.
Fast-forward to today: Many incarcerated workers make pennies on the dollar, which isn’t expected to change if the proposals succeed. Inmates who refuse to work may be denied phone calls or visits with family, punished with solitary confinement and even be denied parole.
Alabama is asking voters to delete all racist language from its constitution and to remove and replace a section on convict labor that’s similar to what Tennessee has had in its constitution.
Vermont often boasts of being the first state in the nation to ban slavery in 1777, but its constitution still allows involuntary servitude in a handful of circumstances. Its proposed change would replace the current exception clause with language saying ”slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited.”
Oregon’s proposed change repeals its exception clause while adding language allowing a court or probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration as part of sentencing.
Louisiana is the only state so far to have its proposed amendment draw organized opposition, over concerns that the replacement language may make matters worse. Even one of its original sponsors has second thoughts — Democratic Rep. Edmond Jordan told The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate last week that he’s urging voters to reject it.
The nonprofit Council for a Better Louisiana warned that the wording could technically permit slavery again, as well as continue involuntary servitude.
Louisiana’s Constitution now says: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, except in the latter case as punishment for a crime.” The amendment would change that to: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, (but this) does not apply to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice.”
“This amendment is an example of why it is so important to get the language right when presenting constitutional amendments to voters,” the nonprofit group said in a statement urging voters to choose “No” and lawmakers to try again, pointing to Tennessee’s ballot language as a possible template.
Supporters of the amendment say such criticisms are part of a campaign to keep exception clauses in place.
“If this doesn’t pass, it will be used as a weapon against us,” said Max Parthas, state operations director for the Abolish Slavery National Network.
The question stands as a reminder of how slavery continues to bedevil Americans, and Parthas says that’s reason enough to vote yes.
“We’ve never seen a single day in the United States where slavery was not legal,” he said. “We want to see what that looks like and I think that’s worth it.”
———
This story has been updated to correct the language of Vermont’s proposal.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — More than 150 years after slaves were freed in the U.S., voters in five states will soon decide whether to close loopholes that led to the proliferation of a different form of slavery — forced labor by people convicted of certain crimes.
None of the proposals would force immediate changes inside the states’ prisons, though they could lead to legal challenges related to how they use prison labor, a lasting imprint of slavery’s legacy on the entire United States.
The effort is part of a national push to amend the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that banned enslavement or involuntary servitude except as a form of criminal punishment. That exception has long permitted the exploitation of labor by convicted felons.
“The idea that you could ever finish the sentence ‘slavery’s okay when … ’ has to rip out your soul, and I think it’s what makes this a fight that ignores political lines and brings us together, because it feels so clear,” said Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises, a criminal justice advocacy group pushing to remove the amendment’s convict labor clause.
Nearly 20 states have constitutions that include language permitting slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. In 2018, Colorado was the first to remove the language from its founding frameworks by ballot measure, followed by Nebraska and Utah two years later.
This November, versions of the question go before voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont.
Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Democrat from Memphis, was shocked when a fellow lawmaker told her about the slavery exception in the Tennessee Constitution and immediately began working to replace the language.
“When I found out that this exception existed, I thought, ‘We have got to fix this and we’ve got to fix this right away,’” she said. “Our constitution should reflect the values and the beliefs of our state.”
Constitutions require lengthy and technically tricky steps before they can be tweaked. Akbari first proposed changes in 2019; the GOP-dominant General Assembly then had to pass the changes by a majority vote in one two-year legislative period and then pass it again with at least two-thirds approval in the next. The amendment could then go on the ballot in the year of the next gubernatorial election.
Akbari also had to work with the state Department of Correction to ensure that inmate labor wouldn’t be prohibited under her proposal.
The proposed language going before Tennessean voters more clearly distinguishes between the two: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.”
“We understand that those who are incarcerated cannot be forced to work without pay, but we should not create a situation where they won’t be able to work at all,” Akbari said.
Similar concerns over the financial impact of prison labor led California’s Democratic-led Legislature to reject an amendment eliminating indentured servitude as a possible punishment for crime after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration predicted it could require the state to pay billions of dollars at minimum wage to prison inmates.
Scrutiny over prison labor has existed for decades, but the 13th Amendment’s loophole in particular encouraged former Confederate states after the Civil War to devise new ways to maintain the dynamics of slavery. They used restrictive measures, known as the “Black codes” because they nearly always targeted Black people, to criminalize benign interactions such as talking too loudly or not yielding on the sidewalk. Those targeted would end up in custody for minor actions, effectively enslaving them again.
Fast-forward to today: Many incarcerated workers make pennies on the dollar, which isn’t expected to change if the proposals succeed. Inmates who refuse to work may be denied phone calls or visits with family, punished with solitary confinement and even be denied parole.
Alabama is asking voters to delete all racist language from its constitution and to remove and replace a section on convict labor that’s similar to what Tennessee has had in its constitution.
Vermont often boasts of being the first state in the nation to ban slavery in 1777, but its constitution still allows involuntary servitude in a handful of circumstances. Its proposed change would replace the current exception clause with language saying “slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited in this State.”
Oregon’s proposed change repeals its exception clause while adding language allowing a court or probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration as part of sentencing.
Louisiana is the only state so far to have its proposed amendment draw organized opposition, over concerns that the replacement language may make matters worse. Even one of its original sponsors has second thoughts — Democratic Rep. Edmond Jordan told The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate last week that he’s urging voters to reject it.
The nonprofit Council for a Better Louisiana warned that the wording could technically permit slavery again, as well as continue involuntary servitude.
Louisiana’s Constitution now says: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, except in the latter case as punishment for a crime.” The amendment would change that to: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, (but this) does not apply to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice.”
“This amendment is an example of why it is so important to get the language right when presenting constitutional amendments to voters,” the nonprofit group said in a statement urging voters to choose “No” and lawmakers to try again, pointing to Tennessee’s ballot language as a possible template.
Supporters of the amendment say such criticisms are part of a campaign to keep exception clauses in place.
“If this doesn’t pass, it will be used as a weapon against us,” said Max Parthas, state operations director for the Abolish Slavery National Network.
The question stands as a reminder of how slavery continues to bedevil Americans, and Parthas says that’s reason enough to vote yes.
“We’ve never seen a single day in the United States where slavery was not legal,” he said. “We want to see what that looks like and I think that’s worth it.”
