“I found it to be a really good group,” she told RI Future.

ALEC’s website lists Morgan as the state director in Rhode Island. Her 2016 financial disclosure form shows two trips to ALEC conferences – to San Diego, for $1,400 and to Phoenix for $1,100.  ALEC membership in Rhode Island was a hot button issue in 2012, when the group’s model Stand Your Ground bill became controversial after it helped exonerate George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin. That year 24 local legislators, half of whom were Democrats, were members. By 2013, there were only six ALEC members in the General Assembly (though on p. 39 ALEC lists 12 members in 2013). In February 2015, RI Future reported that the last legislative membership in ALEC had expired on the last day of 2014. Morgan said she has been an ALEC member since January of 2015, but she was unsure of the exact month.

Morgan said she does not know anything about ALEC’s involvement with Stand Your Ground laws, and did not know the group had been controversial in Rhode Island.

She also said she does not where ALEC’s funding comes from. When informed it comes from corporations, she said, “I’m just as much against corporate welfare as you are. My idea is to do what’s right for Rhode Islanders, not for corporations.”

Her campaign opponent, independent Vincent Marzulo, is raising Morgan’s involvement in ALEC as a reason to vote against her. (Democrat Anthony Paolino is also running against Morgan).

“Her advocacy for private profit at the public’s expense raises serious questions concerning her commitment to the public good,” said Marzulo. “The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a secretive, right-wing, Koch Brothers-funded corporate advocacy group that seeks private profit at the expense of public interest.”

Sam Bell, state director of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, added, “A far-right group that takes uses a money hose of corporate money to influence state politics, ALEC has wreaked great damage all across our country. From stand your ground laws and voter ID to an ocean of bills to help corporate special interests, ALEC has been uniquely effective at pushing awful public policy on the American people. It is hardly surprising that ALEC would align itself with Pat Morgan, a Wall Street politician known for supporting nutty right wing policies. For instance, Pat Morgan actually signed onto a bill to privatize roads and put tolls on cars.”

Morgan said doesn’t think of ALEC as being “conservative or liberal”. She said her relationship with ALEC has already paid dividends for Rhode Island. She said at a conference she learned about the drug Vivitrol, used to help people ween off drug addiction. She said the product is now used at the Adult Correctional Institute, in part because of her.

She said she doesn’t agree with everything ALEC pushes – citing a “session on international relationships.” She said she did not remember the specifics of the session. She also said there was an ALEC session on legalizing marijuana, an issue she said she does not agree with.

When asked if she thinks ALEC cares more about its corporate sponsors or her constituents, Morgan said, “I believe they care more about good policy that helps average people lead good lives.”

17 minutes into our interview, Morgan asked if she was on or off the record. I told her I identified myself as the editor of RI Future when I first called. Morgan feels I should have also informed her that I was writing a story. She hung up on me, and called back a few minutes later yelling. She said she does not think I have integrity.

House spokesman Larry Berman said the legislature does not pay dues of any ALEC legislators, as was the practice in 2012.

For more on ALEC.

Joanne St. Lawrence, who is 55 years old, disabled and does not drive, said three people came to her home on Phoebe Street to collect her mail ballot. She was expecting someone from the campaign of her preferred candidate, Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, who upset DeSimone in the primary. Instead, St. Lawrence says she was greeted by DeSimone supporters.

“They asked me if I had filled in for John DeSimone,” St. Lawrence told RI Future. “I said no. They said, ‘did you vote for Marcia?’ I said yes.”

That’s when one of them asked St. Lawrence for an eraser, she said. When erasing her ballot failed – St. Lawrence filled it out in pen – one of the people, “took it and wrote his name in. They had me sign it and they both signed it,” St. Lawrence said.

She said she knew something wasn’t right, but didn’t know how to stop the people from changing her ballot. “I wasn’t thinking clearly,” St. Lawrence said. “I just woke up.”

“I’m really concerned about this,” she told RI Future. “My vote is supposed to count.”

The Providence Board of Canvassers confirmed St. Lawrence filed a complaint with their office Wednesday. Kathy Placencia, the administrator of elections for the board, said she sent the complaint to the state Board of Elections. The state Board of Elections declined to comment. Bob Rapoza, the acting director, did not return several phone calls over several days.

St. Lawrence said she was told the Board of Elections would consider her complaint today. While the Board does meet today, no agenda lists her complaint specifically. An agenda says the Board will meet today at 2pm and “may” certify mail ballots. The agenda says, “Any individual seeking to represent a candidate or party during the mail certification process must submit written authorization from the represented party or candidate prior to appearing before the board, pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws Section l7-22-2″

UPDATE: Rapoza returned RI Future’s call shortly after this post was published. He said the complaint process will start at the Providence Board of Canvassers. He said his office did receive a copy of the complaint from the Board of Canvassers. “I have no comment on how this would work at this time,” Rapoza said.

On the advice of the Ranglin Vassell campaign, St. Lawrence said she plans to request a provisional ballot on election day. “If my [mail] ballot doesn’t show up, they have to take that,” St. Lawrence said. “So hopefully it doesn’t show up or hopefully they will see that it was changed.”

She said she is also considering filing criminal charges. The people who took her ballot signed it as witnesses, St. Lawrence said, but she does not know if they signed their actual names.

St. Lawrence said she is supporting Ranglin-Vassell because “she’s on the same level as a lot of people in the neighborhood. I don’t know who this John DeSimone is.”

“So fucking recall me,” said Burrillville Town Councillor Donald Fox, then, turning to the Burrillville residents who had stopped to watch the argument, continued, “and that’s going for all you guys listening. Recall me. It’s okay.”

After Wednesday night’s record breaking Burrillville Town Council meeting, which lasted until twenty minutes past midnight and resolved nothing regarding the tax treaty between the town and Invenergy, the company that wants to bring a $700 fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant to the town, Burrillville Town Councillor Donald Fox was heard having a loud conversation with candidate for town council Ray Trinque, who also serves on the town’s sewer commission.

The discussion was in the parking lot of the Burrillville High School, after the town council finished its business. Several people were in the parking lot watching and listening to the conversation, including Jeremy Bailey, a Burrillville resident and a Democratic candidate for town council.

The conversation between Fox and Trinque is “about the sewer commission’s role with Invenergy’s application,” but it quickly dovetailed into events that happened earlier in the year, when Burrillville residents were considering initiating a recall petition against members of the town council. Trinque claims to have interceded on behalf of Fox.

Here’s the transcript, as best as I could hear:

“So why are you trying to make people think that we can stop it, that if the sewers are…” says Fox in the video.

“I didn’t say that…” interrupts Trinque.

“But that’s what everyone in that fucking theater thinks,” exclaims Fox, gesturing towards the high school auditorium.

“I asked a question,” counters Trinque, “But this is why I’ve avoided these town council meetings…”

“Well you should if you’re going to bring up shit like that because you know we can’t do anything about it!”

“Yeah but the whole point is, the first one I get to, I mean [garbled] because I’m not loyal enough…”

“I don’t give a shit!” says Fox.

[crosstalk]

“I’m as loyal as they get!” says Trinque.

“I don’t care about that at all,” says Fox.

[crosstalk]

“Ray, that has nothing to do with this process.”

“This has to do with this process,” says Trinque, “because when these guys were going to recall all of you and wanted you number one…”

“Fucking recall me!” exclaims Fox, “It’s okay!”

“Let me tell you, I talked them into not doing it…” Trinque tries to say.

“It’s okay!” exclaims Fox again, “You know me…”

“Because it would have been ultimately unsuccessful and it would have…”

“You know I don’t care,” says Fox, exasperated, “I’ve got better things to do.”

“I understand that,” says Trinque.

“So fucking recall me,” says Fox, then, turning to the Burrillville residents who had stopped to watch the argument, “and that’s going for all you guys listening. Recall me. It’s okay.”

It’s at this point in the video that Fox notices Bailey recording the conversation.

“You’re going to film it? You’re filming it?” Fox asks.

“Yup,” says Bailey.

“You are such an unbelievable,” says Fox.

“Listen,” says Fox, turning his attention back to Trinque, “It doesn’t matter. You know that we can do nothing about the sewer commission… We’re doing what’s right and you know that. We’re doing everything by the book and to throw stuff out like that is…”

At this point the pair are interrupted by a person in a car.

“Can I help out?” asks the motorist.

“No, this is two Republicans going at it,” says Fox.

“You know,” says Trinque, “Good Republican discourse.”

“We got the Hollywood guy over here filming,” says Fox, gesturing towards Bailey.

In an email, Fox wrote a lengthy reply to the video, which I am including in it’s entirety below:

Ray and I were arguing about the sewer commission’s role with Invenergy’s application.  I took exception to him making public comments about the sewer commission’s capacity when he knows very well that the Town Council cannot control what the Sewer Commission does.  Plus, if the power plant company gets their DEM permitting and all is in order according to State regulations, the Sewer Commission cannot stop them from using the system.  But to bring that up in that manner, when the residents were there to talk about the proposed tax treaty agreements, can lead people to incorrectly believe that the TC can do something about it.  We cannot.  I repeat that we cannot stop Invenergy from using the sewer plant for discharge.

“I have known Ray Trinque for years and appreciate the service he has done for this town through is efforts on the School Committee.  We have often talked about the town, the role of the TC, the role of the School Committee.  It was this Council that appointed Ray to the Sewer Commission.  We have attended many events together and I am proud to call him my friend for the wonderful work that he does with the veterans groups.  So we feel very easy talking about any issue, whether we agree or not.  Ray mentioned a recall effort and I told him that I do not care if I am recalled for doing what is right.  I have never done public service for anything but that – public service.  I will always do what is correct for the Town, not what is correct for politics.  I hate how the power plant issue has been used as a political tool by some in town.  And I am proud of the efforts made by this Town Council to stay away from that and not make it a political issue.  If Council members wanted to use this as a political tool that effort would have been made 2 years ago when Rep. Cale Keable brought the plant to town.

“I have heard about the recall rumors for months and my stance has not changed or been influenced by that.  Let me give you some background on myself.  I never did military service when I was younger and am so very proud of the men and women that I know in my life who have done such service.  One of my best friends has done multiple tours overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, in horrific conditions.  I feel that serving on boards, commission and Council has been my small way of doing something worthwhile for the greater good of my community.  While it can in no way be compared to the sacrifices that our armed forces make, I take a page from my friend’s book – I do not back down to pressure and will always do what is right.  Recall rumors do not affect me and I do not care about them.  That is political garbage and it will not sway me on how I conduct myself as a Council member.

“Let me repeat that, I do not care about such things.  If the constituents of this town feel that I should be recalled for executing, to the best of my abilities, the responsibilities of a Council Member then that is their legal  right.  My voting record is clear.  My actions are clear.  My stances are clear.  I believe in Burrillville.  I want to protect it as much as anyone.  I am raising my 3 children and family here.  I invested $1.1 million of my own money in a new building in Burrillville, when there were cheaper options to build or lease elsewhere in RI and in MA..  I put my money where my mouth is because I believe in this town.

“So when someone like Jeremy Bailey wants to film me and Ray Trinque having a passionate argument about what is good for Burrillville, I do not care.  As I said, Ray and I are friends who have both long served the town, supported the town and care about this town.  According to this week’s Bargain Buyer, Mr. Bailey is a one topic candidate and does not deserve votes in this community due to potential conflict of interest that he has.  The ad questions how he can vote on power plant related issues when he is listed on the abutter list  in the PVGA.  I have to agree with whoever placed that ad.  Mr. Bailey not only has his facts wrong, but he has been a pawn of the Democratic Town Committee in its effort to make the power plant a political issue.  Mr. Bailey’s actions as a sneaky filmmaker do not concern me.  What concerns me is doing what is right for this town.  What concerns me is being part of a Council that has done things the right way since the plant came to town in December of 2014.  What concerns me is that our Council has worked and continues to work for the good of this town and has put aside political aspirations and goals while doing work on the power plant issue.  No one can accuse this Council of not doing what if feels is best for the town as a whole.

“You in your blog very early on questioned this Council for its neutrality so that our boards’ advisory opinions would not be tainted.  Turned out that we did the right thing for the town as a whole.  Yet we were attacked repeatedly by you and others for making this difficult stance.  If people want to recall me for taking such actions, then recall me.  No one will ever accuse me or anyone on this very sound and professional Council of doing anything but what is best for the town.  If you are going to write about this, please include my complete reply herein.”

The revelation prompted one Burrillville resident to quip,”Maybe we should be giving the mayor some money.”

On September 7, according to information gleaned via an Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request, representatives from Mayor Baldelli-Hunt’s office met with representatives from Invenergy. City councilors, who were briefed after the fact, confirmed the meeting pertained to selling water to the power plant to cool its turbines.

This meeting lasted 30 minutes. City Solicitor Michael Marcello, who is also a state representative from District 41 representing Scituate and Cranston, would release no further information about this meeting, saying that the details are secret at this time. Marcello served with Baldelli-Hunt when she was a state rep from 2006-2013.

On September 15, at a fundraising event held at Trattoria Romana, three lawyers from the company Adler, Pollock and Sheehan (APS), the law firm representing Invenergy before the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, donated a total of $1,000 to Baldelli-Hunt’s campaign, according to the Mayor’s campaign finance reports – including a $250 donation from a lobbyist for Invenergy.

Robert Brooks, Managing Partner and Chairman of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Group, donated $250. This is the first time Brooks, a prolific political donor, has given Baldelli-Hunt any money.

Stephen Ucci, who is also a state representative for District 42, representing Cranston and Johnston, and who sits on the House’s Labor and Rules committees, donated $500. Ucci, who served with Baldelli-Hunt and Woonsocket City Solicitor Marcello while they both served in the House, has given a total of $750 to the mayor in the past.

Richard Beretta Jr, is not only listed on the APS website as “currently engaged in the permitting process for a 1000 MW power plant” (the one Invenergy plans for Burrillville) but is also listed  by the Rhode Island Secretary of State as a registered lobbyist for Invenergy. Beretta gave $250 on September 15. He previously gave Baldelli-Hunt $200 in February of 2015.

Four days after this fundraiser, in which employees of APS gave Baldelli-Hunt at least $1000, Invenergy had a second meeting with Baldelli-Hunt’s office. This meeting was also about procuring water and lasted an hour.

Mayor Baldelli-Hunt, who is running on a “pro-business” platform, has another fundraiser planned for November 3 at River Falls Restaurant, from 6-9pm.

Invenergy was recently granted a 90-day extension on their application because the company has failed to come up a with a water source to cool the plant. The Woonsocket Call reported yesterday that City Councillor Daniel Gendron knew nothing about the two meetings, saying, “Really? That’s more than I knew. And that in itself is concerning.”

According to The Call, Gendron and Council Vice President Albert Brien Jr “sent Baldelli-Hunt an e-mail Monday advising her that the City Charter requires the administration to keep members of the council in the loop about the status of business negotiations.” They have requested that the mayor, “expeditiously communicate with the council and provide ALL pertinent emails and other relevant communications between the city and representatives of Invenergy together with any other information that may enlighten all of us as to what exactly is being negotiated at this time.”

Baldelli-Hunt has refused frequent calls for comment from RI Future for weeks now. At a candidate forum in Chan’s Restaurant in Woonsocket last night, Woonsocket Public’s Safety Director Eugene Jalette refused to let residents of Burrillville, Nick Katkevich of the FANG Collective or this reporter approach the mayor to ask questions.

Mr. Johnson has spent the past three decades fighting for the people and the issues politicians don’t care to talk about. Since the 1970s, Mr. Johnson has been engaged in the fight against climate change, and in March 2016, he helped organize a Climate March in South Kingstown. In the late 1990s, Mr. Johnson became heavily involved in the protests against the inhumanity of the American sanctions on Iraq which killed an estimated 500,000 children. Opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, Mr. Johnson, alongside thousands of people, participated in the Iraq War demonstration in NYC on February 15, 2003. Over the years, Mr. Johnson has brought to the high school activists like Ralph Nader and the late Howard Zinn to speak on issues ranging from climate change to perpetual war.

But even with all of these things going on, Mr. Johnson always finds time to help his students. When I was at the high school, Mr. Johnson was always helping someone after school, whether it was with biology concepts, family problems, writing an essay or a science fair project. These conversations would go well into the afternoon, sometimes into the night. And it was one of these late afternoon conversations that sparked the idea for this campaign.

Today, his campaign is run by the volunteer work of a dozen of his students (current and former). We have spent countless hours working on a campaign platform (available online) that covers everything from agricultural policy to social security reform. We have been kicked out of libraries while collecting signatures outside. We have marched through torrential rain holding deteriorating cardboard box anti-war signs in our arms. We have designed a bumper stickers and yard signs, brochures and a website. We do this because we have talked to Mr. Johnson; we have gotten to know what a passionate man he is; and we really believe that he has the ability to affect change, meaningful change, where Mr. Langevin hasn’t in his decade and a half.

To Mr. Johnson, and perhaps to his campaign’s detriment, the election isn’t just about winning and a job in Congress— it is about his students. “The reason why I got into politics was because I was always talking about issues like climate change, but if all you do is talk about them, all you do is depress kids,” he told me earlier today in his classroom, “I felt like I had to do more than a hollow, academic exercise. It had to be a tangible part of my life. I was tired of feeling guilty.” This same feeling motivated Mr. Johnson to run in 1994, 1998 and then again in 2000 for statewide office. In 1994, Mr. Johnson ran for Lieutenant Governor as a Green, receiving about 6% of the vote. To date, no statewide election has matched that vote share result for a Green candidate.

Mr. Johnson is a candidate who will not represent corporate greed and war. He will never take money, as Mr. Langevin has, from defense contractors: General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. He will not be passive as climate change ravages our world— he will be practicing civil disobedience with the activists— he will be getting arrested on the streets so that people will pay attention. Mr. Johnson is a person who understands the plight of the “American dream” and the American worker. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and today, he holds four degrees. He has worked as a submarine welder, a quahogger, a farmer, a prison dishwasher, a medical technician, a Ford assembly line operator, a gas station mechanic, a painter, a landscaper, a book editor and a paperboy. Nowadays, in addition to the high school, he commutes to Providence to work in DCYF group homes on weekends. Private sector, public sector, white collar, blue collar, Mr. Johnson has seen it all. He has seen for himself the struggle and hardship Americans must face every day.

This election season, we hang on the precipice. We must think carefully about whether we want to maintain this status quo of wage stagnation and environmental degradation. We must be open to alternatives, no matter our political affiliation or views. And more than anything, we must courageously vote our conscience after we have given all candidates a fair assessment. Mr. Johnson, I believe, offers alternatives to our status quo, alternatives that will leave a healthy planet for future generations, alternatives that will heal our economic system so that it is more equitable and fair for both the American people and those abroad.

If you want to read more about our campaign and our views, please visit out website. And check out our Facebook page!

The reason for this anomaly is the very undemocratic (small d) practice of prison gerrymandering. Prison gerrymandering refers to counting all of the people incarcerated at a prison in the district where the prison is located for purposes of creating district lines, even if they don’t legally reside there, are barred from voting there, and must vote (absentee) from their actual home addresses. District 15 has approximately 1,230 of these incarcerated persons being counted as constituents there.

This skewing has a number of consequences. Specifically, as noted above, it means that Speaker Mattiello and challenger Frias actually have 1,230 fewer constituents they have to reach out to and represent. Although they are treated as residents of District 15 for purposes of carving up that district, these incarcerated persons are not considered residents there for any other meaningful purpose, including for purposes of voting. In fact, the many ACI inmates who remain eligible to vote despite being incarcerated are essentially barred by state law from voting in this House race. Instead, they must vote (by absentee ballot, of course) in the election that is taking place where they previously resided.

There is another impact that flows from this practice: the voting strength of the communities from which the inmates come is diluted, while the political influence of the city residents in which the prison is located is inflated. By inappropriately counting the 1,230 ACI inmates as District 15 residents, every resident of the state not living there has his or her representation diluted by about 8% compared to residents in district 15. Put another way, by virtue of his location, the House Speaker is more powerful than other legislators not just because of his title, but because 92 constituents of his House District have the same influence as 100 residents in almost every other district. (Only neighboring District 20, which also includes portions of the ACI, wields a bigger disproportionate influence.)

In 2013, the ACLU sued to challenge this practice. In a major decision, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux agreed that prison gerrymandering violated the one person, one vote requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston reversed that decision.

As a result, it is now up to elected officials to address the issue. For the past three years, the state Senate has passed a bill that would ban prison gerrymandering, something that four other states and a few hundred municipalities across the country have done in recognition of this problem. Unfortunately, the bill has died in the House in past years. And at the local level, Cranston officials decided it was worth spending taxpayer money (to the tune of $250,000 even before the appeal) rather than make their municipal districts more equitable as so many other localities have voluntarily done.

Once all the votes are counted in the District 15 race on November 8th, we will only be able to speculate what the outcome might have been if the two candidates had to increase their door-knocking to persuade hundreds of additional people (more closely matching the number of constituents that candidates in other districts generally must represent) to vote for them.

We should stop speculating by eliminating its cause. There is no question that Speaker Mattiello cares deeply about his community, just as we are sure Mr. Frias does. Let’s halt the practice of prison gerrymandering so that 1,000 more people can benefit from that care and stewardship, and so that District 15 (and District 20) more fairly represents the same number of residents as other districts.

This coming December will mark four years since the shooting of 20 first graders and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Since that shooting, our federal government has not passed a single law to protect Americans from senseless gun violence.

Fortunately, Congress isn’t the only avenue for change. Efforts at passing meaningful legislation at the state level, especially in the northeast, have been a totally different story. Picking up where the federal government has failed us, the state first out of the gate was New York in January 2013.  The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act expanded the definition of assault weapons banned in New York, created a state database for pistol permits, reduced the maximum number of rounds legally allowed in magazines from ten to seven, and required universal background checks on all gun sales.

In April 2013, Connecticut passed new restrictions to the state’s existing assault weapons ban and required universal background checks for all firearm purchases. Governor Malloy signed them into law later the same day.

Also in April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, banning the purchase of 45 types of assault weapons and limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds. It requires handgun licensing and fingerprinting for new gun owners, and bans those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility from buying a gun.

Then in August, 2014, our neighbors in Massachusetts passed a bill reforming the state’s gun laws, with provisions focused on school safety, mental health, background checks and enhanced criminal penalties for gun crimes.

So what has Rhode Island’s General Assembly been doing about gun violence?   So far, virtually nothing. Other than one small measure to require that courts report those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions, our lawmakers have yet to enact any significant gun laws since Sandy Hook.

Rhode Island can and should be doing more to protect citizens from senseless gun violence.  This past session, the Rhode Island chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America supported a bill sponsored by Representative Teresa Tanzi (D – Naragansett, South Kingstown) that would have effectively kept guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. This bill represents a modest and reasonable improvement to our state gun laws, generally bringing Rhode Island law in line with federal law.  The bill is straightforward:  if you are a domestic abuser, you should not have access to firearms. Polling results that show that four out of five  Rhode Islanders agree that domestic abusers should be prohibited from having guns[i].  And we know that domestic violence affects Rhode Island’s most vulnerable citizens: children, women, and families.

Why have our neighbors in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts passed meaningful gun laws in recent years, while Rhode Island can’t so much as advance a relatively modest, commonsense bill out of committee? The disconnect lies with our elected officials and includes leadership in both chambers of the legislature.  Increasingly, it appears that elected officials are more inclined to listen to the gun lobby than their constituents. 

But this November, every registered voter can make an informed decision about who gets their vote.  I urge all Rhode Island voters to pledge to support candidates who will fight for common-sense laws to reduce gun violence.  Take a few minutes to contact candidates if you do not know where they stand on gun issues and vote accordingly.  Vote like your life depends on it.  Because with over 33,000 deaths from gun violence every single year in our country, your life and the lives of your loved ones very well may.

Steve Brown, the executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU has issued a statement regarding Providence City Councillor Kevin Jackson’s lawsuit against the two people, Patricia Kammerer and Karina Holyoak Wood, who have organized a recall effort and petition against him.

Jackson’s lawsuit also names the City of Providence and the Providence Board of Canvassers.

“The ACLU is not familiar enough with the mechanics of the City’s recall mechanism to comment on the specifics of the allegations contained in Councilor Jackson’s complaint,” said Brown in the RI ACLU statement, “We do agree that certain due process standards are essential before subjecting elected officials to the burdens imposed in having to defend themselves against removal from an elected position they obtained through a democratic process.

“At the same time, we are deeply troubled that, in addition to suing City officials and the Board of Canvassers, which is responsible for overseeing the recall petition process, the lawsuit names as defendants the two private individuals who have been involved in mounting this recall campaign. Their involvement in the suit is completely unnecessary in order for a court to address any legitimate due process concerns raised by the petition process.  Thus, the inclusion of these two individuals as defendants strikes us a classic SLAPP suit – an attempt to silence private citizens for seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to petition government.

“As Rhode Island’s SLAPP suit statute notes, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern before the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies and in other public fora are essential to the democratic process.’ These two Providence residents should not be forced to defend themselves in a court of law for exercising petition rights granted them by the City Charter. The ACLU urges Councilor Jackson to amend his complaint and remove these two private citizens as defendants.”

In a statement the Kammerer and Holyoak Wood called Jackson’s lawsuit “an obvious delaying tactic.”  Holyoak Wood was the campaign manager of Marcus Mitchell, who ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Jackson two years ago.

Indeed two of Rhode Island’s most trusted State House special interests are at odds on Question 2: Common Cause Rhode Island is for the ballot measure and the RI ACLU is against it. So RI Future brought in John Marion and Steven Brown, the executive director of each organization, to discuss their difference of opinion.

“Common Cause and the ACLU disagree on the limits of what free speech is,” said Marion, of Common Cause.

“We believe there is free speech that is involved when a legislator representing their constituents gets up and talks about an issue,” said Brown, of the ACLU.

At issue is the speech in debate clause of Rhode Island’s constitution that, according to Marion, “provides a general immunity – to legislators, and only legislators – from prosecution or suit for their legislative duties.” Similar speech in debate clauses exist in 43 other state constitutions, he said.

Marion and Brown agree that a 2009 US Supreme Court case found, in Marion’s words, that “there is no First Amendment protection for people with a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest as defined by law you aren’t supposed to participate.”

Brown thinks the court got it wrong. He said legislators need to be able to do their jobs “freely without fear there are going to be consequences,” he said. “We are concerned that the possibility exists that this could be undermined as a result of the amendment.”

“I certainly understnad the arguments on the other side and I don’t dismiss them because certainly the problem with ethics in our government is one that can’t be ignored but I think it’s just a legitimate differing of opinions in balancing these issues and deciding where the greatest harm lies.”

How does it feel to unseat Walaska?

If I were to sum up everything, it would be that I am proud of the work that Jeanine did—especially the fact that she was willing to put herself out there and dedicate her time and energy to a new lifestyle. She was very persistent with the work that I gave her, and I am very proud of the result.

What was your strategy?

The most important aspect of Jeanine’s campaign was being approachable and personable. We wanted to create a community of discussion around issues that were important to the constituents. Canvassing enabled us to develop relationships, and earn support.

What inspired you to get involved in politics?

I read Bernie’s platform, and I pretty much immediately decided that if I did not put all of my effort into electing this man, then I would be extremely disappointed in myself. I had never had any interest in politics before, but Bernie changed everything for me.

That’s interesting. Most people discover Bernie through watching him online, but you discovered him by reading his platform. That’s very issues focused.

I am 100% issues oriented. My main focus is always on enacting progressive policy to make peoples’ lives better.

So what did you do for Bernie?

How long do we have? I started by attending local events, was invited to help get out the vote in New Hampshire. I then decided to spend all my money on plane tickets to fly around the country to volunteer for Bernie. Everywhere I went, I wanted to make sure that I was bringing something new and helpful to that state. I did not want show up one day, eat the snacks, and talk to the organizers for fifteen minutes about why Bernie’s great. I wanted to make the biggest possible impact for Bernie that I could.

So what’s an example of something new that you brought to a state?

In New York, no one was touching two congressional districts in upstate New York, and I created a campaign hub for the area, and I opened three additional staging locations.

How did Bernie do in your area?

Oh, he won overwhelmingly, even though it was a very Republican area. It was so Republican that I met a woman who said she had to register as a Republican in order to even be considered for a job!

How many states total did you travel to to volunteer in?

Seven. Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, New York, and California.

Wow, that’s a lot!

Yeah, I wish I could have done more.

What inspired you to run Jeanine’s campaign?

We had been working together to elect Bernie Sanders for months. She called me one day. I was actually in California. She told me she was running for office, and she really wanted me to be her campaign manager. I was overwhelmed with the fact that someone would actually want me to manager their campaign. I was scared. I was definitely scared.

What made you decide to do it?

I was planning on working on Zephyr Teachout’s congressional campaign, but I knew that I could make a bigger impact by working for Jeanine.

So what were the biggest challenges you faced on the campaign?

The most difficult thing for this campaign was convincing everyone else that she had a shot.

A lot of people assumed that Walaska was going to win. How did you manage to pull off your upset victory?

Having a really dedicated team was the key. We had some amazing volunteers, especially our intern Enzo Cuseo. Jeanine’s husband, Dan, also put in long hours for the campaign after his normal work day. We utilized every moment of Jeanine’s time and our own time to knock on doors, hold events, and make phone calls. Long days and late nights were just part of the job.

What’s the most important result of this race?

To be honest, I think it is showing that your strategy and efficiency can go a long way. People just assume that the person with the most money is going to win, but if you run a strategic and efficient campaign, you can pull it off despite the monetary challenges. Also, I think that Jeanine will be an inspiration to future progressive candidates.

So where are you going next?

I want to continue electing progressive candidates. The Revolution waits for nobody.