Don’t like the car tax? Blame the RI Vehicle Value Commission


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Like the weather, it appears that everybody in Rhode Island loves to talk about the state’s car tax but nobody ends up actually doing anything about it. The Vehicle Value Commission has the power to do something about it, and bears responsibility for the frustration and, sometimes, anger that taxpayers in the state have about it. For years, the ACLU of Rhode Island has submitted testimony to the Commission to encourage revisions to these regulations in order to address that frustration and bring some semblance of fairness to the valuation process. No revisions have ensued, unfortunately. Despite our lack of optimism that this year will be any different, we offer our views once again.”

aclu logoSo begins the ACLU of Rhode Island’s detailed seven-page testimony to the Rhode Island Vehicle Value Commission submitted this week in advance of a public hearing on the Commission regulations on November 10th. The testimony includes a thorough review of the car tax statute and regulation’s history.

According to the Commission, the ACLU’s testimony notes, almost all of the approximately 900,000 cars registered within the state are free of mechanical defects, have only “minor surface scratching with a high gloss finish and shine,” an interior that “reflects minimal soiling and wear,” and “all equipment in complete working order.” That is because the regulations establish the value of used cars up to 17 years old by relying solely on the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) designated “clean retail value” of the car based on its make and model. Such a presumption, claims the ACLU testimony, “defies reality.”

The ACLU of Rhode Island has long called on the R.I. Vehicle Value Commission to stop using this unrealistic vehicle valuation to determine car taxes and to also adopt a meaningful appeals process for Rhode Island car owners, and this year’s testimony does the same.

Not only do Rhode Island drivers face heavy taxes that do not match the true value of their vehicles, they are also denied any meaningful appeal process to have their vehicles recognized fairly. The Commission’s consideration of appeals of its “presumptive value” consists solely of checking for clerical errors, allowing adjustments to be made only when an incorrect NADA car value was inadvertently imposed, not when the taxpayer challenges the NADA figure itself based on, for example, local selling conditions.

In its written testimony, the ACLU said: “Such cold efficiency, which essentially rewrites the word ‘presumptive’ out of the statute, is a disservice to the taxpayers and to basic principles of due process.” The testimony continued: “[W]e leave it to the Commission members and others to suggest alternative methods of establishing a ‘presumptive value’ for motor vehicles; all that we can say is that something more meaningful than the current procedure is essential in order to add some fairness to the methodology.” The ACLU noted that the Commission could consider using local retail sales prices to set vehicle values, break down car models into categories by years, or consider other factors. As it has done at past hearings, the ACLU also called on the Commission to establish a meaningful appeals process.

A copy of the ACLU’s testimony is available here.

car-tax-2

car-tax-1

SCOTUS abortion ruling has RI impact


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
hellerstedt_03 (1)
Washington DC

Local reactions to the Supreme Court decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which is being hailed as the most important reproductive rights decision in decades, have started to come in. Arguing that “…it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan in the 5-3 decision that struck down a controversial law that closed 75 percent of abortion clinics in Texas.

Breyer wrote the opinion, saying, “Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

The full statement from Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island:

Today, June 27, 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right to abortion. In its 5-3 ruling on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck dangerous restrictions on abortion providers in Texas.

While the Court’s decision ultimately does not affect Rhode Island women and families today, Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island warns that existing Rhode Island laws and an anti-abortion rights majority in the General Assembly threaten reproductive freedom for Rhode Island residents.

“The Supreme Court made it clear that politicians cannot pass laws to block access to safe, legal abortion. Yet today’s victory does not undo the past five years of damage and restrictions already written into law across the country and what is at stake this fall in Rhode Island,” said Craig O’Connor, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, Rhode Island with Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island. “We will continue to fight restrictions on safe, legal abortion on behalf of all people in Rhode Island. This year, Rhode Islanders will make it known at the polls that anti-abortion politicians have no place in the Rhode Island State House.”

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling protected access to safe, legal abortion by blocking two unconstitutional Texas restrictions. As the Court recognized, “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

In Rhode Island, several anti-abortion laws exist that have real world effects on abortion access, for example, the prohibition on state employee’s health insurance from covering abortion. In fact, language in Article 1, Section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution explicitly states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” Therefore, if ultimately the Supreme Court reverses its position on Roe v. Wade, there could be very real and very devastating repercussions throughout Rhode Island.

“Physicians and patients must be free to make informed and medically-appropriate decisions without interference from ill-informed legislation,” said Jennifer Villavicencio, MD, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “Abortion is a fundamental aspect of women’s health care and must be protected. Rhodes Islanders need to ask their State Senators and State Representatives where they stand on abortion rights and reproductive freedom.”

Steven Brown, Executive Director with the ACLU of Rhode Island, said that the ACLU of Rhode Island has sued the state more than six times over restrictive abortion laws since Roe v. Wade. Brown said that although each suit has been successful, “much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America – in its annual “Who Decides” scorecard – labeled the RI House and Senate anti-abortion. NARAL also downgraded Rhode Island to an F rating on reproductive rights – from a previous D+ rating. NARAL awarded the same score to Texas.

According to The Guttmacher Institute, politicians have passed 316 restrictions on safe, legal abortion at the state level since 2011.

Rev. David A. Ames, Priest-in-Charge at All Saints’ Memorial Church in Providence and Member of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Clergy Advocacy Board said that all people have “an inherent right to reproductive health care.” Ames explained, “We must continue working to expand reproductive freedom in Rhode Island.”

The RI ACLU’s Steve Brown offered an additional statement, saying, “We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down these cruel and insincere efforts to interfere with a woman’s basic constitutional right. But this is hardly the end of the matter. Since Roe v. Wade was handed down, the ACLU of Rhode Island has been forced to sue the state at least half a dozen times over restrictive abortion laws. Although every one of those suits has been successful, Rhode Island continues to impose significant barriers to a woman’s right to choose, allowable under other U.S. Supreme Court rulings.  As a result, much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

Patreon

ACLU commends Raimondo’s ‘revenge porn’ veto


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

aclu logoBelow are brief statements from five media and free speech organizations, including the Rhode Island Press Association, expressing thanks to Governor Gina Raimondo for vetoing a so-called “revenge porn” bill that would have had a chilling effect on free speech rights.

The groups had requested the Governor to veto the legislation, stating that the bill was so broadly worded that it could make criminals of people involved in neither revenge nor porn, and would have a direct impact on the First Amendment rights of the media. The bill could have limited the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, constitutionally protected material, including items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest. For example, use of images of Holocaust victims or prisoners at Abu Ghraib or, to take a more recent example, some of the infamous Anthony Weiner photos, would have likely been prohibited under the terms of this legislation.

Linda Lotridge Levin, Rhode Island Press Association: “The Rhode Island Press Association applauds Governor Raimondo for her veto of this bill which would have had some serious implications for the news media in the state. The legislation, as written, would have meant the news media could face criminal penalties if they were unable to prove to a jury that photos they published were in the public interest. This would have a chilling effect in a society where a free press is essential to our democracy.”

Chris Finan, Director of the American Booksellers for Free Expression: “Booksellers are very grateful to Governor Raimondo for recognizing that the bill passed by the legislature does not provide sufficient safeguards for the sale of books and other First Amendment-protected material. Without such safeguards, there would be a chilling effect, leaving booksellers uncertain about whether a book on the shelf is illegal and must be removed. Future legislation on this subject should require evidence of malicious intent in the distribution of these images.”

David Horowitz, Executive Director of the Media Coalition: “We applaud the Governor’s decision to veto this bill and protect the First Amendment rights of publishers, booksellers, librarians, photographers, and others First Amendment rights. The legislature can address malicious invasions of privacy without treading on free speech, with a law that is carefully tailored to address real harms. This legislation is not.”

Justin Silverman, Executive Director of the New England First Amendment Coalition: “We are pleased that Governor Raimondo vetoed this well-intended though unconstitutionally broad legislation. By doing so, she helped protect the First Amendment rights of Rhode Island residents and prevented a chilling effect on public interest journalism. We welcome the opportunity to work with legislators and privacy advocates to make sure any future legislation adequately addresses the harm of revenge porn while also preserving our First Amendment freedoms.”

Steven Brown, Executive Director of the ACLU of Rhode Island: “We commend the Governor for recognizing the serious First Amendment concerns raised by this legislation, and for the need to enact a more carefully-crafted law that will pass constitutional muster. We also wish to thank Rep. Edith Ajello for her efforts in trying to get the bill amended to meet First Amendment standards as it made its way through the General Assembly.”

While the bill does include an exemption for items that are “in the public interest,” the groups pointed out in requesting the Governor to veto the legislation that this does not offer news publishers any meaningful protection, as the final determination of whether the material constitutes a matter “in the public interest” would be left to a jury. Editors and producers would have no way of knowing in advance whether an image would be deemed to fall into this category or not, which would create a substantial and unconstitutional chilling effect on speech. Other states in New England that have enacted this type of legislation have passed much narrower versions to mitigate these constitutional concerns.

Federal judge orders end to “Prison Gerrymandering” in Cranston school and city council districts


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

aclu logoIn a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux issued a decision today holding that the City of Cranston violated the one person, one vote requirements of the U.S. Constitution when it allocated the entire incarcerated population of the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) as “residents” of one ward of the City when it drew district lines for the City Council and School Committee following the 2010 Census.  The ruling allows the City 30 days to present the Court with a new redistricting plan meeting constitutional requirements.

Today’s ruling, just the second of its kind in the nation, concluded that the City artificially inflated the population count of Ward 6, where the ACI is located, by treating all incarcerated persons as “residents” of the prison for redistricting purposes. Doing so, said the court, violates the rights of persons residing in other wards to equal representation as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“I’m thrilled that our fight for equal representation has been successful,” said Karen Davidson, lead plaintiff.  “Fairness in redistricting is a fundamental right and I’m glad that the court has vindicated our claims.”

At issue in the case was the City of Cranston’s choice to count the more than three thousand inmates at the ACI in a single city ward for the purposes of drawing City Council and School Committee districts.  Plaintiffs argued this “prison gerrymandering” was improper because those incarcerated at the ACI are not true constituents of local elected officials, but instead remain residents of their pre-incarceration communities for virtually all legal purposes, including voting.

Judge Lagueux agreed with the plaintiffs’ claims, stating that “the ACI’s inmates lack a ‘representational nexus’ with the Cranston City Council and School Committee.” He noted that “Cranston’s elected officials do not campaign or endeavor to represent their ACI constituents,” and pointed out that that the majority of incarcerated persons cannot vote, and those who can are required by law to vote by absentee ballot from their pre-incarceration address.

Due to the questionable counting, persons at the only state-run correctional facility in Rhode Island account for 25% of Ward 6’s total “population.” According to Census Bureau data, without the incarcerated population, Ward 6 has only 10,209 true constituents. Yet those constituents now wield the same political power as the roughly 13,500 constituents in each of the other wards.

Cranston residents Karen Davidson, Debbie Flitman, Eugene Perry, and Sylvia Weber joined the ACLU of Rhode Island as plaintiffs in the case. They were represented in federal court by Demos, the Prison Policy Initiative, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Rhode Island.

“This is a big win for democracy,” said Adam Lioz of Demos, counsel for the plaintiffs.  “Prison gerrymandering distorts representation and should no longer be tolerated.  This decision should pave the way for other courts to address this long-standing problem.”

“We applaud the court’s decision requiring the City to correct its prison gerrymandering problem without delay,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.  “It is time for Cranston to stop holding elections under a one-person, three-quarters of a vote regime.”

“Counting people at the ACI as constituents of Ward 6 officials made no sense,” said Aleks Kajstura of the Prison Policy Initiative.  “They can’t use the park or library, attend a City Council meeting, or send their kids to public schools.  And, even those who can vote must do so from their actual legal residence, not the prison location.”

“This ruling means that Cranston can no longer play games with our democracy by artificially inflating the political power of one district over another. People who are incarcerated should be counted as residents of the districts where they lived, not as so-called ‘residents’ of where they are involuntarily confined,” said Sean Young, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Lynette Labinger added: “The ACLU first urged the City to redraw its district lines four years ago in order to protect the rights of voters in the City’s five other wards. I am gratified that they should soon have their voices heard in equal measure with those in Ward 6.”

The case is Davidson et. al. v. City of Cranston.  Plaintiffs’ complaint can be found here and their response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss is here.  Judge Lagueux’s ruling is here.

[From a press release]

ACLU ‘disappointed’ with Caleb Chafee records request ruling


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluThe Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled today that Providence Journal reporter Amanda Milkovits “would not be granted access to public records the Rhode Island State Police made concerning an investigation of an underage drinking incident at property owned by then-Governor Lincoln Chafee that involved the governor’s son, Caleb,” reported Bill Thompson at Channel 12.

In response to this ruling, the ACLU of Rhode Island issued the following statement regarding The Providence Journal Company et al. v. The RI Dept. of Public Safety:

The ACLU is very disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Caleb Chafee case. We believe it fails to give sufficient weight to the important public interest in monitoring police investigations of high-profile cases.
“In denying the Providence Journal access to any of the requested documents, the Court inexplicably points to the large number of records that were withheld as proof that ‘a thorough investigation was performed.’ But without being able to examine the documents, it is impossible to determine a key fact behind the records request — whether the public outcome of the investigation properly reflects what the undisclosed investigation actually uncovered.

“For decades, the ACLU has strongly supported both the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know. In this instance, we believe the Court tipped the scales the wrong way. Instead, the decision highlights the need for a stronger open records law in order to allow the public more critical oversight of the state’s law enforcement agencies.”

ACLU statement on Cranston Police Department prostitution sting operation


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluOn Friday, the Cranston Police Department issued a news release announcing the results of a sting operation that, in its own words, was aimed at “targeting human traffickers, specifically those victimizing juveniles.” According to the news release, no fewer that eight law enforcement agencies were involved in this operation. According to news reports, however, the sting led to only one arrest for trafficking and one arrest for pandering. Instead, the biggest result of the operation appears to have been the arrest of fourteen “johns” for “procuring sexual conduct for a fee” and fourteen other people for prostitution.

ACLU of Rhode Island Policy Associate Hillary Davis issued the following statement today in response to the arrests:

“Human trafficking is a scourge, and efforts to eradicate it are to be applauded. However, as this operation makes clear, law enforcement stings like this one often end up having little to do with trafficking, but a lot to do with embarrassing and penalizing consenting adults engaged in sexual conduct for a fee. Conflating prostitution with trafficking does nothing to help the trafficking victims who remain ensnared while consenting adults are pursued and arrested. By humiliating and charging johns for seeking consensual sex and by giving prostitutes arrest records in the name of ‘helping’ them, these operations misleadingly purport to crack down on human trafficking, when their major effect is just to make the lives of prostitutes more difficult and dangerous, driving sex work even deeper into the shadows.

“We commend the organizations in the state actively working to provide social and other support services to sex workers who may have addiction or need other assistance.  But we emphatically reject the notion that the only way these individuals can be helped is if they are first put into handcuffs.”

Education advocacy coalition seeks records on premature use of PARCC


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluCiting widespread confusion about the potential use of PARCC exam results in a punitive manner against students in the near future, a coalition of organizations has filed an open records request with every school district in the state to obtain information about any plans they have to use the test for grading or graduation purposes before 2021.

In various public comments, state Commissioner of Education Ken Wagner has indicated that, in order to provide time for schools to give students necessary support services, he does not believe schools should use PARCC as a high stakes test determining a student’s graduation eligibility until 2021. However, he has refused to revise current R.I. Department of Education policies that give school districts the power to incorporate PARCC scores into students’ grades and to use the test as a high stakes graduation requirement as early as next year. This month, for example, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s comments, Cranston parents were advised that PARCC scores would be a graduation requirement for the Class of 2020.

The confusion and mixed messages are generating anxiety among some parents and students similar to what occurred with PARCC’s predecessor, the NECAP. Today’s open records requests to school districts – filed by the ACLU of Rhode Island with the support of more than a half-dozen other organizations – are designed to determine which school districts have discussed using PARCC before 2021 as a graduation requirement or a grading tool, and to publicize the information to parents who may be perplexed by the conflicting messages being sent by RIDE and who wish to object to the premature use of the test results in such a manner.

Cranston parent and Parents Across RI  (PARI) Advisory Committee member Debbie Flitman said today: “RIDE officials are misleading parents and students about the use of the PARCC assessments as a graduation requirement. I recently attended a meeting where RIDE officials told participants that PARCC testing is not a graduation requirement for the classes of 2016-2020. Based on this information, I was under the impression that this was a statewide directive. Confusion set in when I attended a Class of 2020 Orientation at Cranston High School West, where students and parents were told PARCC testing is a graduation requirement. When I pushed officials further, I learned that RIDE regulations allow school districts to use PARCC testing as a graduation requirement if they so choose. Why isn’t RIDE being upfront with this information at their meetings?”

Rick Richards, a former employee in the Department of Education’s office of testing, stated: “With school districts free to use or not use PARCC results to punish students, it will matter more than ever where you live. This approach has the potential of deepening disadvantages already embedded in the state’s educational system.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown said: “It is unfortunate that RIDE is giving school districts open-ended authority to use PARCC results so soon without any need to demonstrate that they have provided necessary support services to the students who will be adversely affected. This is very poor public policy and an abdication of responsibility on RIDE’s part. It is particularly unfortunate that we, rather than RIDE, must find out exactly what is going on across the state.”

Tracy Ramos from Parents Across RI, said: “Parents and students deserve clear information about the use of PARCC tests. The Commissioner’s recent comments indicate that schools shouldn’t be focused on test scores. This request will help clarify for parents what’s really happening in our districts.”

Under the Access to Public Records Act, school districts have 10 business days to respond to the request. The organizations joining the ACLU in support of the request for the documents included RITELL, Young Voices, Providence Student Union, RI Disability Law Center, Coalition to Defend Public Education, Parents Across RI, Youth Pride Inc, Tides Family Services.

A copy of the open records request is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/PARCC_Open_Records_Request_022416.pdf

ACLU challenges ordinance restricting student housing rights


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluThe American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has filed suit against the City of Providence to challenge a recently enacted city ordinance that prohibits more than three “college students” from living together in certain areas of the city. The ACLU of RI argues that the ordinance is discriminatory and ineffective at its stated purpose of improving neighborhoods, and will likely have the most impact on lower-income students.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island Superior Court by ACLU of RI cooperating attorneys Jeffrey L. Levy and Charles D. Blackman, is on behalf of the owner and tenants – four Johnson & Wales undergraduate students – of a house in the Elmhurst section of Providence. The City ordinance, enacted in September, makes this arrangement illegal by prohibiting more than three “college students” from living together in a non-owner-occupied single family home in certain residential areas. The suit argues that the ordinance violates the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

The lawsuit claims that “there is absolutely no reason to believe that restricting the number of student tenants in a small subset of available rental housing (i.e., single-family homes) will make the affected neighborhoods any quieter, safer or cleaner. On the contrary, the ordinance is an unconstitutional intrusion into the rights of college and graduate students to choose with whom they wish to live, and the rights of property owners to rent their homes to tenants of their choice.”

The suit notes that there are already multiple ordinances in place to address noise, parties, traffic, and other possible nuisances. In challenging the ordinance’s discrimination against students “based solely on their occupation and/or educational status,” the suit further points out that “college student” is so broadly defined that it includes anyone enrolled in a college or university, whether they are a full-time undergraduate student, a PhD candidate, or a professional taking classes part-time.

The ACLU of RI raised these concerns before the Providence City Council approved, and Mayor Jorge Elorza signed, the ordinance into law in September.

Attorney Levy said today: “The City and State already have laws in place that regulate overcrowding, loud parties and underage drinking. This ordinance goes too far by attempting to legislate who can live together in the same house. Ultimately, it will have its most significant impact on students from low-income and middle-income families who can’t afford to cover a larger share of the rent in a single-family home.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown added: “The ordinance’s unfair stigmatization of Providence’s students is contrary to the City’s reputation as a welcome host to the local colleges and universities. More vigorous enforcement of laws already on the books, along with increased collaboration with the educational institutions, would be a more productive method to deal with the legitimate concerns that some residents have raised.”

The lawsuit seeks to halt all enforcement of the ordinance and have it declared unconstitutional.

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/FHC_v._Providence_Complaint.pdf

RI Supreme Court allows accommodation for breastfeeding during Bar exam


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluThe Rhode Island Supreme Court has adopted a new policy that will allow women Bar applicants who are breastfeeding to easily obtain accommodations when taking the Bar exam. The policy was adopted after a number of groups encouraged the Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners to revise its policies that offered no accommodations to individuals who were breastfeeding, leaving them at a serious disadvantage during the test.

The new policy now explicitly extends eligibility for accommodations to those who are breastfeeding, and allows breastfeeding applicants to request and obtain accommodations without unnecessary or intrusive burdens. The ACLU of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Women’s Bar Association, League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island NOW had sent a number of letters to the Board since last July calling for these reforms.

Jenn Steinfeld, executive director of the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, said today: “Our organization applauds the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s recognition of the importance of accommodating breast feeding applicants. This is yet another step toward professional accessibility for all. Like Rhode Island’s new state law providing workplace protections for pregnant and breastfeeding employees, this policy helps ensure that parents don’t have to choose between the health of their children and their employment or career. We are proud to see Rhode Island promote gender equality and will remain vigilant to ensure it is implemented fairly.”

In their correspondence with the Board, the groups recommended accommodations such as allowing women to bring necessary medical equipment and supplies to the test, providing additional break time to express breast milk, or other accommodations an individual may need to ensure women do not suffer any medical issues. Not allowing for such accommodations, the groups noted, forced candidates needing accommodations related to breastfeeding to choose between taking the test under conditions that could place their health at risk and postponing their test date until they were no longer breastfeeding.

Jane W. Koster, president of the League of Women Voters of RI, said: “The new policy in place for accommodations erases discrimination and prevents arbitrary decision-making, and thus offers the exam without bias or barriers against women who are breastfeeding.  In the future, I am sure we will hear success stories from women who found great convenience, comfort and ease of exam anxiety while profiting from these accommodations. I applaud the R.I. Supreme Court’s decision.”

Rhode Island now joins all other New England states and many others across the country that provide specific accommodations for women who are breastfeeding at the time of their Bar exam. The previous policy addressed only accommodations for people with disabilities.

A copy of the new policy is available here: https://www.courts.ri.gov/AttorneyResources/baradmission/PDF/Nonstandard_Testing.pdf

Providence to halt enforcement of anti-panhandling ordinance


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluIn a major step towards reducing the criminalization of the poor in Rhode Island, the City of Providence has advised the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island that it would halt enforcement of an anti-panhandling ordinance that has led to the harassment and arrest of homeless individuals. The ACLU had called for this action in a letter delivered to Mayor Jorge Elorza two weeks ago, in which it pointed out the ordinance’s dubious constitutionality and its impact on the rights of the poor and the homeless.

Advocates for the homeless have been critical of a seemingly aggressive enforcement by the City of laws that target innocuous activity of the homeless in public. In its letter, the ACLU had noted that the City’s ban on so-called “aggressive solicitation” directly targets the homeless, and that a number of similar ordinances have been recently struck down by the courts for infringing on First Amendment rights. The ACLU therefore requested that the City immediately halt its enforcement. In response, the City agreed to that request and also to terminate any pending prosecutions.

“The Mayor remains committed to making Providence a place that supports its residents, especially those who are most in need, and we look forward to our continued work together in this regard,” Providence City Solicitor Jeffrey Dana stated in a letter to the ACLU of RI.

ACLU of Rhode Island executive director Steven Brown said today: “This is a very positive development, and we applaud the City for recognizing that this ordinance cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. We are confident that officials will make sure that any harassment of the homeless by police for peacefully soliciting donations, even if it doesn’t lead to an arrest for panhandling, will cease.”

Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless executive director Jim Ryczek added: “The Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless welcomes this development on the part of the city.  We hope this is the first step in better understanding homeless people and working with them to appropriately identify their needs and acquire safe and affordable housing.  We look forward to continued progress on other problems facing the city in relation to its homeless citizens. As always, we stand ready to help the City of Providence better serve its homeless constituents.”

Megan Smith, an outreach worker at House of Hope CDC, said: “We are hopeful that Providence’s decision to halt enforcement of the aggressive solicitation ordinance demonstrates that the City recognizes panhandling for what it is: a means of survival for our poor and homeless neighbors, not a criminal activity. While there is much more work that must be done to shift policy from criminalizing poverty to finding collaborative solutions, this represents an important step forward.”

The ACLU letter had also called on the City to repeal an ordinance that bans “loitering on bus line property,” but the City claimed that no arrests had been made under that law.

The ACLU’s action is part of the organization’s ongoing efforts to challenge and repeal laws that disproportionately affect the rights of the homeless. In December, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Cranston ordinance that bars the solicitation of donations from motorists. The ACLU argues that the ordinance violates free speech rights and is selectively enforced by the City. That suit is pending.

A copy of the ACLU’s letter is available here.

A copy of the City’s letter is available here.

Reps Regunberg and Metts seek to curb solitary confinement


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

ACI PatchRep. Aaron Regunberg and Sen. Harold M. Metts have introduced legislation to reform the controversial use of solitary or “segregated” confinement in the Rhode Island prison system, saying the practice causes psychological damage and often exacerbates the very problems it is intended to address.

“The United Nations has condemned the use of solitary confinement, saying it can amount to torture,” said Representative Regunberg (D-Dist. 4, Providence). “And the research is very clear that prolonged solitary confinement causes psychological problems that can damage inmates’ chances of rehabilitation. It’s a vicious cycle that is destructive rather than corrective, and it particularly impacts already vulnerable populations, including the very high proportion of our prison population affected by mental illness. Add this to the fact that segregation units are by far the most expensive facilities to operate, and it should be clear that we need to put responsible limits on, and devise humane alternatives to, the use of solitary confinement in the prison system.”

Said Senator Metts (D-Dist. 6, Providence), “We cannot in good conscience call our prison a ‘corrections’ institute when the system relies on a punishment that is essentially designed to cause mental breakdown, particularly when so many of those subjected to it are already mentally ill. We have a moral imperative, as well as a constitutional mandate, to ensure we are not employing cruel or unusual punishment, and it is time we recognized that solitary confinement, in many cases, is cruel. Its use must be limited, and our prison system must stop using it on people who are particularly susceptible to the lasting effects it can have. We have to strive to find a better balance between rehabilitation and punishment.”

Many studies have found that long-term solitary confinement can produce psychological damage with symptoms such as hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise or touch, paranoia, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased suicide risk and uncontrollable rage or fear. The risks are higher for juveniles, whose brains are still developing, and for those with mental illness.

Those effects can result in inmates having more difficulty complying with prison rules, defeating the purpose of solitary confinement. Even those who aren’t mentally ill when they enter solitary confinement can be left with lasting psychological effects that they take with them when they are released from prison into the community.

“Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment,” said S, a current inmate at the ACI who has asked to remain unidentified for fear of retribution. “I have seen people get years in segregation, and get locked in solitary for non-problematic reasons, like identifying as LGBTQ, filing lawsuits, or sharing political views. I have witnessed people in solitary confinement break down, start talking to themselves, become paranoid, play with their own feces, and worse. When you go to High Security [the solitary confinement facility] for causing a problem, they don’t help you, they don’t give you any mental health services, they just lock you in a cell for 23 hours a day. So when you go back to the normal facilities, you’re worse off.”

The legislation would prohibit the use of solitary confinement — also called “segregated confinement” — for specific vulnerable populations, ensure that conditions in segregation are humane, and limit the use of solitary confinement for all inmates to 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days within any 60 day period.

The bill (2016-H 7481) has support from a wide array of inmates’ rights activists, mental health advocates, civil rights groups and families of incarcerated individuals.

“Solitary is a very dehumanizing experience that leaves a person broken and unable to function,” said John Prince, a member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality with first-hand experience of solitary confinement in the ACI. “You hear nothing, see nothing, have nothing to think about almost 24 hours a day. You lose all perspective of time. Human beings are not meant to live like that for weeks or months on end. My experiences in solitary were extremely painful, and I have many friends who were left unable to relate to people, even their families, after prolonged segregation. There have to be limits that keep this from being used for long periods or on people who are likely to suffer lasting damage from it.”

“Even mentally healthy people lose their faculties in solitary confinement, but for people with mental illness, it is a particularly unhealthy situation that impairs an individual’s ability to maintain healthy relationships,” said Michael Cerullo, a psychotherapist with extensive clinical experience in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system. “Without positive relationships in the community and with oneself, meaningful rehabilitation is significantly compromised. People with mental illness suffer serious trauma that cannot be undone when they are released either back into the prison population or back into the community, and that damage has ill effects on them and the people around them. We have to stop using this counterproductive approach with human beings challenged by mental illness for their sake and for the sake of the whole community.”

“Across the country, states are reducing their reliance on solitary confinement,” said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU. “Long-term isolation costs too much, does nothing to rehabilitate prisoners, and exacerbates mental illness — even in those who were healthy when they entered solitary. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court noted not only the extreme toll solitary confinement takes on those subjected to it, but that those who are affected may never recover well enough to reintegrate well into the community. Yet, the use of solitary confinement persists. States that once relied heavily on solitary confinement are now instead focusing on policies that promote safe communities and fair treatment — at the same time saving their states millions and reducing violence in the prisons. It’s time for us to do the same here in Rhode Island.”

The House bill has 38 cosponsors, including Representatives Scott A. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), Jean Philippe Barros (D-Dist. 59, Pawtucket), Raymond A. Hull (D-Dist. 6, Providence, North Providence) and David A. Bennett (D-Dist. 20, Warwick, Cranston).

[From the press release]

ACLU commends House on passage of Good Samaritan Legislation


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

acluThe ACLU of Rhode Island issued the following statement on the passage of Good Samaritan Legislation by the Rhode Island House:

“We thank the House for moving to reinstate the Good Samaritan law. Today’s approval of this life-saving legislation puts the state on track to address drug use and addiction through treatment rather than criminal punishment.

“It is now critical that the House and Senate each promptly approve the opposite chamber’s identical version of this bill so it can be sent to the Governor and signed into law as soon as possible.

“The reinstated Good Samaritan law will save lives and reassure Rhode Islanders that their state values saving a life over making an arrest. We look forward to its speedy passage, and hope to work with lawmakers to expand its protections later this session.”

[From a press release]

Senate passes Good Samaritan Act, House takes it up on Tuesday


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Good Samaritan 173“We applaud, and are deeply grateful to, the Senate for its quick action today in making the reinstatement of the [Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act of 2016] the legislative priority of the first week,” said Steve DeToy of the Rhode Island Medical Society, Rebecca McGoldrick of Protect Families First and Steven Brown of the ACLU of Rhode Island in a joint statement.

“Reinstating this law will save lives, and is an essential step in addressing the dire overdose epidemic Rhode Island is grappling with. Furthermore, it is a step in the right direction of how we should address drug use and addiction. For too long we have made it the task of the criminal justice system to address these issues, and this approach has been costly, ineffective, and destructive. It’s time that we handle drug use and addiction as a public health and medical issue and put saving lives above making arrests. The Good Samaritan bill makes major strides towards that goal by giving people in the community greater confidence that they will not be arrested if they seek medical care.

“In that regard, we are hopeful that in considering this legislation next week, the House will not only pass it speedily but will also consider expanding it to cover other drug-related offenses as well.”

The bill was introduced by Sen. Michael J. McCaffrey (D-Dist. 29, Warwick).”Identical legislation (2016-H 7003) submitted by Rep. Robert E. Craven (D-Dist. 32, North Kingstown) will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at the rise of the House in Room 101 says a General Assembly press release. The bill exempts “from liability any person who administers an opioid antagonist to another person to prevent a drug overdose. It would further provide immunity from certain drug charges and for related violations of probation and/or parole for those persons who in good faith, seek medical assistance for a person experiencing a drug overdose.”

Governor Gina Raimondo is expected to sign the bill and also issued a statement. “The Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act of 2016 is an important tool to combat this public health crisis. Rhode Island’s response to the overdose crisis must first and foremost be focused on saving lives. I applaud the General Assembly for their action to encourage Rhode Islanders to call 911 in an overdose emergency.”

When Speaker Nicholas Mattiello abruptly ended the legislative session last year the Good Samaritan law was one of the most important and vital pieces of legislation not to pass. The original bill had a sunset clause, but has been so successful in saving lives its reinstatement was considered a given. Activists were shocked, lives were put at risk.

Mattiello considered having a special Fall legislative session to discuss the PawSox deal, truck tolls and the Good Samaritan Act, but that Fall session never came to pass.

Patreon