Slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishment for a crime prohibited, and constitutional amendment proposed.
Summary
HF3335 proposes a constitutional amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishment for a crime. The bill would revise article I, section 2, to remove the existing exception that allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a convicted crime, while retaining the broader constitutional protections against deprivation of rights except by due process or judgment of peers.
If approved by the Legislature and then by voters, the amendment would be placed on the 2026 general election ballot. The ballot question would ask Minnesota voters whether the state constitution should be amended to prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishment for a crime.
Impact
The bill would change Minnesota’s constitution rather than ordinary statute law, meaning the effect would be to alter the state’s foundational legal text on slavery and involuntary servitude. If adopted by voters, it would remove the constitutional language that currently permits involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, potentially affecting how Minnesota law is interpreted in relation to prison labor and other forms of compelled labor tied to criminal sentencing. Because it is a proposed constitutional amendment, the immediate legal effect is only to place the question before voters in 2026.
Sentiment
The available context suggests broad, likely bipartisan support or at least low controversy at introduction, as the bill was authored by multiple members and referred to committee without recorded opposition in the provided materials. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of debate, but the subject matter indicates a reform-oriented effort to modernize constitutional language and eliminate an exception tied to criminal punishment.
Contention
The main point of contention, if any, would likely center on the practical implications of removing the constitutional exception for involuntary servitude in criminal punishment, especially for prison labor, work programs, and correctional administration. Supporters would view the amendment as a civil rights and anti-slavery measure, while any opponents might argue about unintended consequences for the correctional system or the need to preserve existing inmate labor practices. No specific objections or named opponents appear in the provided record.