ENTITIES EXCEPT FOR SURPLUS PERISHABLE PRODUCTS OR PRODUCTS NOT GENERALLY MANUFACTURED IN THIS STATE.
V. CONCLUSION
FOR THE ABOVE-STATED REASONS, IT IS THE OPINION OF THE UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL THAT:
1) ARTICLE XXIII , SECTION 2 PROHIBITS ONLY CONTRACTS FORMED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF "CONTRACTING OUT" INMATE LABOR WHEN THE CONTRACT RESULTS IN A PRIVATE ENTITY HAVING PHYSICAL CONTROL OVER THE INMATES.
2) CONTRACTS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INMATES WITH EMPLOYMENT ARE FORMED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.
3) THE PAYMENT OF WAGES TO AN INMATE PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONTRACT.
4) BOTH THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING INMATE WORK ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS AND THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING INMATE LABOR IN PRISON INDUSTRIES FIND SANCTION IN ARTICLE II , SECTION 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION. FURTHERMORE, THESE STATUTES ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION IN ARTICLE XXIII, 2, AGAINST THE CONTRACTING OUT OF INMATE LABOR.
(LINDA K. SOPER)