California is often celebrated as a leader in the growing movement for reparations for Black Americans. In 2020, it announced its first-in-the-nation reparations taskforce, which was charged with studying the issue and making recommendations for redress. Since then, it’s inspired similar initiatives across the US. But actually implementing those reparations proposals hasn’t been as easy.

Over the past year, members of California’s Legislative Black Caucus put forward a package of bills that drew on the taskforce’s policy recommendations released last June. They included initiatives to increase access to education for Black Californians, prohibit race-based discrimination in schools and workplaces, and offer restitution for mid-century racist eminent domain programs in which the homes and businesses of Black residents were seized by the state.

After final votes were taken in August, fewer than half the bills passed.

Kamilah Moore, a reparatory justice scholar and attorney who chaired the state’s reparations taskforce, spoke to the Guardian about what these mixed results mean, where the movement goes from here, and how the elections could shape the future fight for reparations. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

When the legislative session closed at the end of August, six of the 14 priority bills were ultimately passed and signed by the governor. What do you make of this – is this a success or a setback?

It’s a mix of both. The taskforce worked for two years to compile evidence to justify a claim for reparations. We spent a lot of time drafting our final report, and we were very intentional about our policy recommendations.

So, yes, it’s a success in the sense that the bills introduced by the Legislative Black Caucus were inspired by our final report. And the fact that half of them passed is great. It’s historic, and I want to give credit where credit is due.

At the same time, there were other bills introduced by legislators that would have provided more immediate or material change that were voted down. Some were killed earlier in the session, with legislators citing the budget deficit. Others were killed at the last minute by legislators from the Black caucus for reasons the community is still trying to figure out.

Which achievements from this legislative session feel most impactful?

One is an amendment to the California constitution to no longer allow a slavery loophole if you’re convicted for a crime. It’s going to be on the ballot on November 5 as Proposition 6, and if it passes, prisoners will no longer be able to be forced to work for slave wages. While it’s going to have a direct and almost immediate impact on all prisoners, no matter their race, it will be felt most by Black Americans, who are disproportionately represented in California state prisons and jails.

Another was the formal apology bill [which Newsom signed in September]. When most Americans think about reparations, they think about money or a check, but compensation is just one form of reparations under international law. The legal definition comprises five forms, one of which is satisfaction (the other three are restitution, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition), which can relate to something like an apology.

But an official recognition of wrongdoing from the state does more than check off a box. It provides a foundation for advocates to stand on in the fight for more substantive and material reparations – like, eventually, direct cash payments or free college tuition. It means the state can’t be let off the hook.

Among those that failed, which are the biggest losses?

Some of the biggest losses to the community include Senate Bill 1331, which would have created a new account in the state treasury to fund reparations programs, policies and initiatives; SB 1403, which would have created a new state agency to provide direct services to descendants of slaves; and SB 1050, which would have given an avenue to reclaim land that was taken by the government via racially motivated eminent domain.

On the last day of the California state legislature, people thought that the Black caucus was going to introduce two of those bills – the fund bill and the agency bill – for final vote. But at the last minute, they decided not to. It was a psychic blow for us reparationists to see Black legislators fail to carry through two of the most transformative bills in state history.

The third was vetoed by Newsom after it passed through the state legislature. But the move was deceptive, as Newsom used another bill’s absence — an absence he had himself orchestrated — as justification for the veto.

It’s notable that none of the 14 bills put forth by the California Legislative Black Caucus this year included cash payments. What do you make of this?

As chair of the taskforce, I can say that we did our work. The statute stated that our final recommendations had to comport with international human rights law standards, meaning they would need to include compensation. We took that mandate very seriously.

We hired five trained economists to help us crunch the numbers to figure out what compensation could look like. We didn’t want to just come up with any number. We wanted it to be rooted in data and a solid methodology.

The final figure – $800bn – got a lot of attention. There was shell shock even among taskforce members. But we weren’t saying that the state should give $800bn to Black Americans in the state. We were saying that’s how much the state has dispossessed from African Americans in California. That’s how much the state has stolen from African Americans in California through exclusionary public policy – like housing segregation, mass incarceration, over-policing and the devaluation of Black businesses – that has hindered our opportunities to build wealth over time.

Then, the University of California, Berkeley, released a poll that found most Californians opposed direct cash payments, and that became the major headline. Speaking from the outside looking in, I think that played into the calculus of the Legislative Black Caucus. To me, it appears their strategy was to take a low-hanging-fruit approach by introducing recommendations from the taskforce report that were easy wins instead of more substantive ones, like direct cash payments and other forms of material reparations.

Do you think that California has fallen short on its promise, or has it shown that progress – even if incremental – is possible?

Data show that when the Black community thinks about reparations, there’s a hope gap. So, while most of us think there should be reparations – and will be in line if that day comes – the majority of us don’t think that day will ever come.

I think the work of the taskforce has truncated that hope gap a little bit. The apology bill has shown that this is possible. And even though other bills didn’t pass, they came very close. People can taste it.

Even with some of the legislative setbacks of this past year, the movement for reparations in the state and nationally is more invigorated than ever. Black people are seeing that this is a serious movement. They want to be involved and to see more material reparations in this next session. All across the nation, people are energized.

What are reparations advocates thinking now? What are the next steps, both in California and nationally, especially to make sure that any future reparations bills are impactful, not just symbolic?

This session, we got a lot of symbolism. The bills that passed are cool, but we’re looking for more material reparations in this next session.

First off, the community is advocating for the Black caucus to reintroduce the two bills that they killed. We’re also expecting legislators to reintroduce some bills that died in appropriations earlier this year, like one that would have given property tax relief to descendants of slaves living in formerly redlined neighborhoods, or another that would have given descendants housing grants to purchase their first home or to pay down a mortgage. Finally, we’re hoping to see new bills inspired by the taskforce’s work for things like free college tuition.

Nationally, it depends on who wins. Some organizations are pushing for President Biden to create a reparations commission via executive order before he gets out of office.

Speaking of the national stage, as a senator, Kamala Harris backed HR 40, which would have created a commission to study reparations, but this year she has largely side-stepped the issue. What do you expect from her if she’s elected?

Vice-President Kamala Harris has been asked about reparations a couple of times on the campaign trail recently, and she thinks it should be studied. So, if she wins – and if there’s a blue House and a blue Senate – I think there will be an uptick in trying to put the appropriate pressure on Congress to pass a reparations commission. But she indicated to the National Association of Black Journalists she doesn’t want to do it via executive order. It will have to go through Congress.

And if Trump wins?

Trump has already touted a Project 2025 talking point about disbanding the Department of Education. He also said he would withhold funding from schools that teach the histories of Native American genocide and of chattel slavery. But in California, we teach the truth. So, when Donald Trump says he wants to eliminate the Department of Education and withhold federal funding from localities or states that teach the things that are in our taskforce report, that is alarming. He has also criticized Kamala Harris by saying she wants to issue taxpayer-funded reparations. Piecing that together, it doesn’t look great for reparations if he becomes president.