This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Few states can speak with any accuracy of being further left than Colorado.

That's where abortion is a constitutional right, where Democrats run the governor's office, the legislature, and even the state Supreme Court. That was where justices wildly tried to bar President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. In the legislature, lawmakers decided to simply run around a constitutional limit on tax hikes by calling the new charges "fees."

It's gone even further, in some situations, than California, by creating circumstances where teachers have been known to sexually assault students.

Now these leftists are on trial for continuing … slavery.

In fact, a Denver judge has held a two-week trial on the issue, just visited a state prison to review the situation, and soon will rule.

A report from Courthousenews said the state initially abolished slavery in 1877. But lawmakers left an exception that allowed slavery and involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for crimes.

Then in 2018, voters changed their state constitution to remove that exception.

David Maxted, representing inmates who complained that they lost privileges if they refused to work, said, "Part of the reason voters passed this is because they believed the state should not have the power to compel individuals to work against their will. This is a moral judgment."

When the change was made in 2018, the state prison department didn't change its work requirements, rules that require inmates to do certain jobs in order to obtain certain privileges.

An earlier court ruling, from Judge Alex Myers, gave the state a partial win, determining laws requiring inmates to work did not violate their rights unless they faced legal or physical force as punishment. That ruling said losing privileges did not violate their rights, since they are, in fact, privileges.

The state Court of Appeals then declined to review the case, initiated on behalf of inmate Harold Mortis.

And the case was moved for other issues to another judge.

Ann Stanton, a lawyer for the state, said in closing, "This case isn't about the fact that there are consequences, it's about the degree of consequences. You haven't heard evidence that the consequences reach the level of involuntary servitude."

She pointed out some inmates were in restrictive housing for being difficult to manage, having banned items, or some other rule infraction.

The new judge gave the two sides time to submit findings, questioning, "Do the plaintiffs have to prove that involuntary servitude is rampant throughout the state corrections system, or do they just have to prove that the current policies and practices enable involuntary servitude?"