WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 3536

Constitutional Amendment proposal to prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishment for a crime

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Clare Oumou Verbeten

Minnesota constitutional amendment would eliminate slavery/involuntary servitude as allowed criminal punishment, closing 13th Amendment loophole for incarcerated people.

Referred to Judiciary and Public Safety
#constitutionalamendments #crimesandcriminals #publicsafetyandpublicsafetydepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 3536

Legislative bill overview

SF 3536 proposes a constitutional amendment to Minnesota's state constitution that would explicitly prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. Currently, the U.S. Constitution's 13th Amendment contains a carve-out allowing involuntary servitude as criminal punishment, which Minnesota's constitution mirrors. This amendment would close that loophole at the state level.

Why is this important

This addresses a constitutional provision that has historically allowed courts to impose forced labor on incarcerated individuals, raising concerns about exploitation and modern-day servitude within the criminal justice system. Several states have already passed similar amendments, reflecting growing bipartisan recognition that criminal punishment should not include slavery-like conditions. The change would strengthen protections for incarcerated people and could have practical implications for prison labor programs and sentencing practices.

Potential points of contention

  • Prison labor operations: States and localities rely on incarcerated workers for maintenance, food service, and manufacturing; an absolute prohibition could disrupt current prison operations and increase costs
  • Voluntary vs. involuntary distinction: Defining what constitutes "involuntary" servitude becomes important—questions arise about whether compensated prison work programs that inmates theoretically decline would be affected
  • Implementation scope: Ambiguity about whether the amendment applies retroactively to existing sentences or only prospectively, and how it interacts with existing sentencing structures

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.