Colorado voters had the choice on November 8 to decide whether or not to abolish a loophole in the state’s constitution that makes slavery legal as punishment for a crime. Lawmakers from both parties unanimously decided to put the question on the ballot and there seemed to be no opposition to the effort, as no one campaigned against it.

That’s why it was such a shocker when it turned out that a majority appears to have voted against the measure. All of the votes have still not been counted, but by late Thursday there were almost 35,000 more “no” votes than “yes” votes, out of 2.3 million ballots cast.

Many were upset after the election:

Colorado votes NOT to remove language of slavery from state constitution. This is even more concerning than other results today.

— Matthew Bentley (@bentleymaja) November 9, 2016

Colorado voted a minimum wage increase while simultaneously voting to keep slavery in the constitution for criminals. Huh?

— John Livingston (@JohnLivy) November 18, 2016

Colorado, I’m confused. You voted for Clinton, to keep slavery legal, to legalize assisted suicide, & made it harder to propose amendments.

— Suzi Q Smith (@suziqpoet) November 9, 2016

It seems unbelievable that over a million people in a state that recently voted to legalize recreational marijuana would also vote against completely getting rid of slavery. And when it dawned on lawmakers why the results turned out as they did, they probably slapped their heads. The question was worded like this:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

Would you know whether to check the “yes” or “no” box?

“I think people were confused by the language,” Democratic Representative Joe Salazar told the New York Times. “I don’t think this was a pushback at all by individuals saying they wanted slavery in the Constitution. I just think the language was too confusing.”

The exception to the prohibition of slavery, which allowed for the practice as a punishment for a crime, was added in 1876, which was after slavery was abolished nationally in 1865. But since it was not widely known that the language exists in the constitution, activists think that people might have misinterpreted it. In addition to the confusing language on the ballot, some believe that voters could also have been thrown off by a voter guide that was sent to every Colorado voter. The guide is required to contain arguments for and against ballot measures and it said that the proposition could lead to legal ambiguity, although experts were not actually concerned.

Lawmakers are determined to try one more time, but next time with simpler language. “We’re going to do it again,” Mr. Salazar said. “We’re going to make sure we finally rid the Constitution of that language.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Votes to Keep Slavery in State Constitution (Really) appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in nearly two decades, the state of Alabama might implement a lottery system in order to pay for basic services that it currently cannot afford.

In a video released yesterday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced, “the state of Alabama has not and cannot at this time pay for the most basic services that we must provide to our people.”

He continued, “the time has come for us to find a permanent solution. This solution will provide funding that we can count on year after year without ever having to raise your taxes or put one more Band-Aid on our state’s money problems.”

BREAKING:We need your help solving our funding crisis.I’m giving you the opportunity to vote on a Statewide Lottery. https://t.co/BLzE3bOXLP

— Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) July 27, 2016

The lottery could bring in $225 million annually, a steady revenue that would help alleviate the state’s reliance on borrowing money and using one-time money to fill the gap in Alabama’s dismal finances. Bentley said the revenue would be applied to General Fund programs like services for law enforcement, the mentally ill, children, and “those in the most need.”

State lawmakers have tried cutting “wasteful” spending, shifting the management of Medicaid to the private sector, and borrowing money, and a proposed, but rejected, tax plan–but those efforts have still not been enough to fix the financial problem.

Bentley said he wants the voters to decide whether or not a lottery should be implemented to fix Alabama’s financial situation, which means the issue would appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. However, in order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to approve the amendment by Aug. 24 with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate.

With less than a month until the date the amendment would have to be approved by, it doesn’t seem like the Alabama governor has made any plans to get the ball rolling. Though he just made the video announcement Wednesday, he has not provided any other details on a special session which would have to be called in order to create the amendment.

State representatives and senators from Alabama took to the proposal differently. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus, said he was disturbed that Bentley had not talked about the lottery proposal with him or anyone in the Caucus.

“It seems like everything that is being done now is being done behind closed doors,” Knight said.

Acting House Speaker Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) shared those sentiments, saying in a statement, “the governor has not outlined his plan to legislators in any detail, nor, to my knowledge, has he even set a concrete start date for the special session, so it is difficult to comment with so little information at hand.” He continued, “I hope that the governor reaches out to lawmakers over the next several weeks in order to seek their input on any lottery proposal that comes forward and to do the prep work that is necessary for any special session to be successful.”

Others, like Rep. Craig Ford, (D-Gadsden), leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama House of Representatives, do not believe Bentley’s plan will work.

“A lottery will do nothing for this year’s Medicaid shortfall, and at best will be nothing more than a band aid for the General Fund that will leave us right back where we are now in just a few years,” he said in a statement. “The lottery is a one-shot deal, and a lottery for the General Fund will become, as it has in other states, a victim to legislative shell games; it will become nothing more than a slush fund for legislators.”

.@RepCraigFord says his proposed lottery must fund scholarships, and will not save the state’s budgets: https://t.co/yxGV9vUygK #alpolitics

— AL Reporter (@ALReporter) July 27, 2016

Sen. Quinton Ross (D-Montgomery), minority leader in the Alabama Senate, agrees with Bentley’s lottery proposal.

“These gaming dollars can provide stability and long-term economic streams for many of our General Fund and Education Trust Fund needs.”

Until Bentley schedules a special session, it’s unclear whether or not the lottery will come to the Crimson Tide state.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding? appeared first on Law Street.

Enacted January 1, 2014, an amendment to Rhode Island Fair Employment law will limit pre-employment inquiries by Rhode Island employers concerning job applicant’s criminal history. The amendment will restrict employers who are covered by the law from inquiring about an applicant’s prior criminal past until or after the first interview with said applicant. Before an interview employers will be prohibited from inquiring about whether a job applicant has ever been arrested, charged with, or convicted of any crime.

However, there are exemptions from the prohibition, such as applications for law enforcement agency or related positions. In addition, pre-interview questions are permissible where an employer is precluded by from hiring an individuals with specified criminal records. If standard fidelity bond or an equivalent is required for the position one or more prior offenses would disqualify the applicant from obtaining such a bond.

This amendment to Rhode Island’s Fair Employment law follows the trend of ‘Ban the Box’ laws that have been enacted in other jurisdictions.

[Littler]

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Kulinski via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ban the Box Law: Rhode Island Prohibits Criminal History Inquiries Before Interview appeared first on Law Street.