constitutional convention

November 3, 2014November 3, 2014

Insiders behind the opposition to Constitutional Convention

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 rest of us, I’ve seen the expensive ads telling us not to vote for a constitutional convention, which is Question 3 on the ballot Tuesday. What these ads don’t say is how consistently insiders are backing the effort to stop a convention. The role of insiders has gotten far too little coverage in the media.

I recognize that many of those opposed to a convention are not insiders. I know a lot of the people doing the grunt work on the anti-constitutional-convention campaign, and I can vouch for the fact that they’re not insiders.

Rhode Islanders are split on the issue, though polling suggests more of us are in favor of having one, including many good-government people such as former Common Cause director Phil West, and many progressives such as those who founded Just Reform Rhode Island, a group I belong to. So it’s true, if you’re looking for non-insiders, you can find them on both sides of the issue. But it’s significant where the biggest insiders stand, and they’re not as split as we are — they’re backing the opposition to the convention.

Let’s start with the top politicians. We are told by anti-convention people that we should vote against a convention because it could be controlled by top politicians, like the Speaker of the House. Well, if that was true, you would expect politicians to be favoring it. They’re not. Speaker Mattiello opposes a convention. Not a single top politician in the state is in favor of it, and they try to get voters to turn it down (example1, example2).

In fact, conventions shift power away from top politicians and toward the voters. If there’s no convention, politicians can continue passing bad laws and rejecting good ones, and the voters never have a say. But a convention is different. While in ordinary times most State House politicians get re-elected easily without even having any opponents, a constitutional convention attracts more candidates. If you were a political insider wanting to keep your friends in power, you’d prefer leaving things to the General Assembly, where year after year it’s pretty much the same career politicians elected and doing each other favors, and you’d fear the reforms that could be passed in a constitutional convention where it’s easier for decent people who aren’t career politicians to be elected.

We, as regular people, have goals that are the opposite of political insiders’ aims. After the 38 Studios scandal and the police raid on the State House, we want to see more democratic accountability, and insiders naturally don’t like the good things that are likely to be pushed forward in a convention by a public which is eager for positive change. What comes out of a convention will not make the insiders stronger, it makes them weaker and makes the people stronger. Another advantage of a convention is that a convention doesn’t have the General Assembly’s ability to pass laws on its own. Every change that the convention proposes must go to the voters, and will not take effect unless voters say so. So, compared to the General Assembly, a convention offers more safeguards against bad laws. That’s especially true in 2014 Rhode Island, where the voters not only want reform but also support progressive values, much more so than our politicians.

In case anyone thinks insiders like Mattiello secretly want a convention, their actions speak even louder than their words. Mattiello and other top State House politicians appointed a “preparatory commission” this summer to produce a report on the possibility of a convention, and Mattiello chose a convention opponent to help run the commission. The commission held only a few hearings in the State House in Providence, without visiting the rest of Rhode Island. Its final report only briefly discussed what a convention could do, and estimated the cost of a convention as $2.5 million: a surprisingly high estimate, considerably more than the costs for the 1973 and 1986 conventions even after accounting for inflation. Next, this report was edited down, in the version sent to voters in the Voter Information Handbook, so that it said nothing at all about what topics a convention could address and only told voters about the convention’s cost, again using the unusually high estimate of $2.5 million (which is still only $2.40 per person). When our political elite dwells on the minor cost as an argument against change and accountability, it’s a telling sign.

A couple of people involved with the anti-convention campaign have posted articles on RI Future, highlighting a press conference where 3 former delegates to the 1986 convention tried to convince us not to have another convention (article1, article2). It’s worth noticing that these 3 former delegates at that press conference trying to stop a new convention are all people who have developed strong insider connections.

Two are former RI state senators (one became the Senate Minority Leader), and the third was appointed by notoriously corrupt mayor Buddy Cianci to a judgeship (and later promoted by Cianci to chief judge). Now, I don’t know what was going through these 3 people’s minds, and I don’t want to trash their motives. The fact that a person has insider connections doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she isn’t an honorable person. But on the other side, I think it’s reasonable for Rhode Islanders who are concerned about the future to not accept things just because an insider-y group says so. And the fact is that these 3 well-connected people don’t speak for all former delegates. It’s significant that so few of the former delegates were willing to join in that message — I’ve talked to other former 1986 delegates who have learned from the 1986 convention and now want a new convention to do things better.

It’s true that the 1986 convention had flaws: there wasn’t enough public organizing in advance of the 1986 convention to keep things out of the insiders’ hands. (My group, Just Reform Rhode Island, is already working on that.) And it’s also true that the last convention was held in 1986, when Rhode Island was in a much different place politically than it is now — for instance, Rhode Island voters are now pro-choice by huge margins. We’re now faced with a choice: we can either vote down Question 3 and stay closer to the constitution written in 1986, when Rhode Island was very different, or else vote for a convention as an opportunity to move the constitution to something that better fits the values that Rhode Islanders now have 30 years later. What does it say when 3 of the people who had the privilege of being involved in writing the 1986 constitution, and then later developed insider ties, are telling us not to try changing their work now? I can’t speak for why they’re saying that, but to me, their anti-convention message doesn’t cut it.

The insider effort against the convention isn’t limited to politicians. Take RIPEC, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, a group whose board is largely made up of big businesses (some of them based out-of-state) and those with political clout. They’re always given a very respectful hearing at the State House, more so than people who are trying to voice the concerns of the rest of Rhode Island. RIPEC issued a report on Question 3 that didn’t directly say “Vote No on a convention”, but does repeatedly hint that a convention may not be a good idea. The fact that these economic super-insiders are leaning against a convention is worth noting.

In fact, it’s seriously misleading when the anti-convention campaign says that a convention would mean “wealthy special interests” would take over. In reality, the anti-convention forces are the side with the most money. They’ve spent over $140,000 trying to stop a convention from happening, about twice as much as was spent on the pro-convention side, according to Board of Elections filings. Not all of the groups contributing to that $140,000 are bad. But one of their biggest donors, for instance, is an organization administered by the Senate Majority Leader, Dominick Ruggerio: it’s called the New England Laborers’ Labor-Management Cooperation Trust. Despite the word “Laborers” in its name, it’s not strictly a union group, but is a kind of combo labor-business-political insider lobbying hybrid, with half its trustees coming from business and half from labor people. This group runs mostly on business contributions, but it’s administered by the Senate Majority Leader, and it has already spent $10,000 trying to stop a convention.

If you look at the expensive ads paid for by the anti-convention campaign, they never mention that Senate Majority Leader Ruggerio’s group is backing them. Rhode Island law requires political campaign ads to include information about who is behind the campaign, so that voters can learn who is backing or organizing a campaign without having to go look up little-known filings. Until a few days ago, the anti-convention campaign simply left out all of these required disclosures from all their ads. After the Board of Elections found they violated the law, they started adding more information, but they still don’t mention that Majority Leader Ruggerio’s group is one of their top donors. Their list of top donors includes several more innocent-sounding groups instead. On the whole, I think this persistent lack of disclosure shows a terrible attitude towards voters’ right to know.

It’s ironic that the anti-convention people act like they’re in favor of good government, and stir up fears of big money trying to buy the system, without doing what real good-government people do and showing an open attitude towards disclosing the issues related to their own finances. In reality, screaming that “wealthy special interests” will buy a convention misses the point: the real problem is that the system we have is already dominated by these wealthy interests. Big money can do very well if there’s no convention. What a convention does bring is a chance for the people to have more of a say.

If big money at the national level wanted a Rhode Island convention, or if big money at the state level did, why wouldn’t they spend their cash here and make a difference? The fact is that the insiders and the fat cats are fairly satisfied with how things are. Most of them are aware that they face more risk of losing than gaining if a convention did give voters the opportunity to have a say in how the system works. Don’t just take my word for it: the money speaks for itself. The idea that a convention could be a tool for wealthy special interests is backed up only by a little talk, not by serious money. No investor out for mere gain has decided to treat financing a pro-convention campaign as a reliable investment, because voters are quite likely to use a convention to rein in the abuses of the well-connected.

So it’s clear where the insiders stand, the politicians as well as the financial backers. As for the rest of us, we’re unfortunately split on a convention, and it would be better if more of us start taking this opportunity to promote the positive changes that the insiders are resisting. I know there are some who are honestly against a convention, and it certainly isn’t true that those against a convention are all bad people. But to suggest that a convention is a tool for insiders and the wealthy is a misleading, expensive falsehood. It’s a tool for us, if we prepare for it right, and those with too much clout are right to fear it.

November 3, 2014November 4, 2014

Protect your rights: reject question 3

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

Tomorrow, you will choose between your constitutional rights or an expensive fantasy.

In recent weeks, the ACLU of Rhode Island and a number of other organizations have talked extensively about the risks of a Constitutional Convention. We’ve shown what came from the 1986 Convention, including a lasting restriction on the right to bail, and the 20 years it took to undo the Convention’s disastrous impact on minority voting rights. We’ve shown you the political trickery used to deceive voters during the last convention, like this question, approved by the voters in part because nobody knew exactly what it meant:

(It actually contains a restriction on the right to abortion: can you find it?)

We’ve brought you the words of delegates of the 1986 convention, like Lila Sapinsley, who said:

“If delegates to the 2015 convention are elected by existing electoral districts we will again have a duplicate of the legislature. Let’s concentrate on electing better representatives and forget about an expensive duplicate of the General Assembly.”

And we’ve shown what you can expect from a convention now by examining issues faced in other states, including:

Bans on affirmative action
Denial of various rights to immigrants
Restrictions of LGBT rights
Unprecedented restrictions on abortion
Restrictions on state participation in the federal health care exchange
Tax credits or vouchers for religious schools.

Despite all this evidence, proponents promise a Constitutional Convention divorced from politics and from the undue influence of out-of-state special interests spending millions to push their own pet projects.

The ACLU shares the frustration of many with the actions of the General Assembly, but your rights are too great a risk to take. Promises cannot protect your rights. Your vote can. Rejecting Question 3 may force advocates for change to work harder, but it makes sure your rights are still yours in 2016.

Tomorrow, vote to reject Question 3. Your rights depend on it.

October 31, 2014

Conley no stranger to Con-Con ‘sleight of hand’

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

There is no greater irony than Patrick Conley claiming that opposition to a Constitutional Convention is rooted in “political paranoia,” (“History shows there is no need to fear Constitutional Convention,” October 31, 2014) while extolling the purity of the Constitutional Convention process. By Mr. Conley’s own confession, it was only through “sleight of hand” – his own – that “the most significant substantive alteration ever made in the state constitution” occurred.

In his book, “Rhode Island in Rhetoric and Reflection,” Mr. Conley notes that the 1973 Constitutional Convention was to be limited to “the consideration of certain definite topics.” Feeling he knew better than the people who made the rules, Mr. Conley determined the convention should, in fact, force the electorate to decide every ten years whether or not a convention should be held. Because this was not on the list of approved topics, Mr. Conley stretched the rules of the convention in defining his amendment – claiming it was a revision of election law – placed a misleading title on his document, and bypassed the agreed-upon rules of the Convention. Yet, Mr. Conley promises us that this cannot happen again, with much more dire results for civil rights and civil liberties.

Conley’s history wrong on Con-Con, civil rights – Jaime Rhodes

In addition, we question Mr. Conley’s assertion that he “did not see any inordinate influence from” legislators and special interests during his participation in the 1986 convention. Again, in his own book, Mr. Conley writes of being chosen as general counsel for the 1986 convention by convention president Keven McKenna, but that “an irate Speaker [of the House] Smith called President McKenna with an ultimatum: either general counsel Conley goes or your convention funding goes. Thus ended, at least for now, my paid career as a constitutional reformer.” Mr. Conley promises a convention similar to that in 1986. As do we; the difference is that we have provided Rhode Islanders with the truth about the 1986 convention, and what a 2016 constitutional convention would be.

Mr. Conley’s tales of the “sleight of hand” and politics run amok of the Constitutional Convention are just one more reason voters should reject Question 3.

Hillary Davis – Policy Associate at American Civil Liberties Union, Rhode Island Affiliate

October 31, 2014November 1, 2014

Conley’s history wrong on Con-Con, civil rights

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

Those advocating for a Constitutional Convention who are saying that there is no threat to human and civil rights ignore our history. The pledges of these reformers ring hollow to those involved in the fight to protect women’s reproductive health care decisions. By dismissing this concern, “So much for conventions as threats to civil rights” (Patrick Conley “History shows: Don’t fear Convention”, October 31), Conley forgets what dedicated advocates for women’s equity never can.

The 1986 Convention proposed two amendments to the electorate that treat women as though they are incompetent to make medical decisions without the interference of the state. The “fetal personhood” amendment was rejected by the public, a story told as a testament to the wisdom of RI voters. The second and more insidious amendment was packaged as expanding free speech rights, yet included this line now in our Constitution: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” This is why women’s health advocates are concerned. The 1986 convention took away rights recognized as protected by the US Constitution.

This is not “political paranoia or constitutional constipation” as Conley would lead you to believe. Organizations such as the ACLU, RI National Organization of Women, the RI Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and Planned Parenthood are hardly the political insiders concerned about losing influence in the General Assembly. If we want to reform our system of government, let’s do it in a way that does not pose a risk to people’s rights.

Jamie Rhodes of Warwick, is also the Rhode Island Policy Director for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.

October 9, 2014

Grover Norquist doesn’t actually know much about a ConCon

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

As I listened to Grover Norquist address the crowd of about 80 people at the swanky and exclusive Squantum Association in East Providence on Thursday afternoon, I couldn’t help but wonder if the slick conservative operative knew what he was talking about.

For instance, Norquist attempted to minimize the danger to civil rights that a con-con represents by touting the good government reforms that might spring from such a venture, saying, “I think you will find, as we have in other states…”

What other states is Norquist talking about? There hasn’t been a con-con in any state in this country in 30 years, and the last one was held here in Rhode Island. In that last con-con, there were several constitutional changes suggested (and passed) that directly impacted civil rights. So what is Norquist talking about, when he mentions “other states”?

“Every day that the legislature meets, they form a constitutional convention,” said Norquist, although what that statement could possibly mean is difficult to figure out. And why he thinks this would make Rhode Islanders want to have a con-con is even more difficult to ascertain.

Norquist says that during the process of a con-con, “one or two amendments might become intriguing and important” failing to note that the last time a con-con was held, 22 amendments were bundled into 14 ballot questions. These amendments were all over the place in terms of civil rights restrictions for minorities and women. There is a big difference between two amendments and 22.

At another point in his 13 minute talk Norquist claims, without offering one bit of proof, that a constitutional convention is a “more open process” than the General Assembly. I know of no study that indicates this to be in any way true or provable.

Obviously, Grover Norquist thinks that a con-con is a good idea, he made a special trip to Rhode Island while visiting his parents in Western Massachusetts to make his case on behalf of Mike Stenhouse, Ken Block and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. But the sense I got from Norquist’s speech isn’t that he supports the con-con out of a love for the power of democracy or a yearning to put the power of government into the hands of average people.

What Norquist and the rest of the con-con supporters seem to be looking for is access to the document that sets the rules for how government functions in our society. The normal avenues of power are closed to Norquist and Stenhouse: Voters routinely reject candidates, such as Ken Block (who was also a speaker at this event) because they rightly sense that these candidates do not represent the interests of the public. Meanwhile, the General Assembly has been cool to the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s radical ideas, such as eliminating the sales tax without finding a revenue stream to replace it.

But if Stenhouse and his coalition can crack open the constitution and take to it with scissors and markers, they can possibly create the kind of government that responds better to the crank economic theories his center espouses. These won’t be temporary changes to the constitution either. As Norquist says, a con-con “elevates the debate from who win and who lose this week to ‘what are the rules for the next hundred years.’”

Stenhouse, Norquist and Block repeatedly point out that fears of attacks on civil rights are overblown, and in one sense they are right because rich white men almost never face serious challenges to their civil rights.

Just the prospect of a constitutional convention in Rhode Island has outside money and special interests sharpening their knives in anticipation. Grover Norquist and his extreme right-wing ideology are just the tip of the spear.

October 7, 2014October 7, 2014

Gov. Chafee is against a ConCon

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

Governor Lincoln Chafee is opposed to a constitutional convention, he told me today, because delegate districts “mirror” legislative House districts. This, he said, gives House leadership too much influence in the process.

“When I served on ’85-’86 convention, it was run by the speaker,” Chafee said in a phone interview today. His first elected office was as a delegate to the last concon 30 years ago.

“The trouble is that the delegates’ districts mirror House (district) boundaries,” he explained. “They just have a whole apparatus behind them. They have people to call in every district, that they call every two years. Sure you can beat the machine, but it’s hard.”

During the ’85-86 concon, Chafee said he saw firsthand how House leadership exerted power during the convention. Rep. Matt Smith, of Providence, was speaker at the time.

“It left me wide-eyed,” Chafee said. “We would have a long discussion, looking at what other states did, and after all that input one of the speaker’s loyal votes say Madame Chair, I move the question, and it would get voted down.”

He also said a concon in today’s political atmosphere could be too easily influenced by outside spending. “A new phenomenon since I served is all the money that comes on these issues.”

Chafee said during the ’85-86 convention, he was pushing for the same issues during the ’85-86 concon that he thinks still needs to be reformed about Rhode Island’s governmental structure: executive powers. That year, he helped implement 4 year terms for governor, though the legislature also won four year terms through the convention, he said. But they didn’t manage to pass a line item veto, something that he feels is still a critical reform for Rhode Island.

“The spotlight and the heat are on the executive, meanwhile the executive branch doesn’t have any power,” he said. “The speaker and the Senate president can fly under the radar. If all the focus is on the executive, give them some power.”

Chafee said such unbalanced powers between the executive and legislative branches surely plays into the state’s frequent turbulence. “If you want to know why Rhode Island lags the country in so many ways, look at our structure of government,” he said.

When he fought for more executive powers at the ’85-86 concon, he said his motives were more political. “It was mainly because Republicans could get elected governor,” he said, noting that he was a GOP member at the time. He said Gov. Ed DiPrete gave him a $100 donation, and he spent about $1,000 campaigning as a delegate. “The minimum is you need something with your name on it to leave with people. It costs $300 to print a palm card.”

The governor acknowledged previously supporting the idea of another constitutional convention. “I might have said I was in favor of it but not until we change the way we elect delegates.”

If there were to be one, he said he would push for a line item veto, as well as a unicameral legislature, which he said could work efficiently in a state of Rhode Island’s size. He said he wouldn’t likely campaign to be a delegate. “Been there, done that,” he told me.

October 7, 2014October 7, 2014

Where does Common Cause stand on ConCon question?

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

On the November ballot, referendum Question 3 will ask voters; “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?” While most people following Ocean State politics are focused on who will be the next governor of our state, or the next mayor of our capital city, question three bears watching too. The process for putting the referendum on the ballot every ten years was the result of a 1973 constitutional convention ballot initiative.

The first time the voters were presented with the new question (in 1984) they authorized a convention. The result was a two-year process that placed 14 questions on the 1986 ballot, eight of which were ratified by the voters. In 1994 and 2004 the voters rejected the referendum and no conventions were held as a result. Our organization, Common Cause Rhode Island, opposed the last two referenda but in 2014 we are not taking a position. Quite frankly, there are too many compelling arguments for and against a convention this time. Just a cursory review shows both sides to have compelling arguments.

Supporters of a convention point to important constitutional changes that they assert are needed in our state as the impetus for their efforts. They also rightfully point out that many of these reforms that limit legislative power could be much more difficult to achieve through the typical process whereby the General Assembly puts proposed constitutional amendments it would like on the statewide ballot.

Opponents of a convention point to the many important changes that have been put on the ballot by the legislature; including Separation of Powers, downsizing the legislature, elimination of the much abused legislative pensions, merit selection of judges, etc. They argue that a convention will be a creature of the legislature given that the election of delegates is based on state legislative districts, and that in 1986 many of them had deep ties to members of the General Assembly.

Opponents of a convention express legitimate concerns about the possibility that such a gathering might put restrictions on important civil rights and liberties up to a popular referendum. They point to amendments from 1986 that would have put restrictions on abortion rights (which didn’t pass) and imposed restrictions on bail for certain drug offenses (which did pass).

Supporters point to the fact that the people must approve any changes to the Rhode Island constitution that are placed on the ballot by a convention, and that the voters overwhelmingly rejected new restrictions on abortions in 1986. They argue that the U.S. Constitution contains sufficient protections for civil rights and liberties, and that those cannot be abrogated by the a state constitution.

We encourage the voters of Rhode Island to look closely at the arguments made against a convention by Citizens for Responsible Government, and for having a convention by Renew RI. Both coalitions have already been spending considerable resources to make their respective point of view heard. No doubt the coming weeks will see even more arguments by both sides of this question.

Common Cause is engaging a different type of education, one that is not focused on persuading anyone about the merits or dangers of a convention. Rather we are trying to explore what a convention might look like by digging into the archives from the 1980s and other sources. Here are a few quick facts:

There were an extraordinary 558 candidates for the November 5, 1985 election of 100 delegates to the constitutional convention. That election resulted in only 96,538 eligible voters casting a ballot. The convention held 11 statewide public forums and received over 1000 comments. After that they held 111 substantive committee meetings and took testimony at 34 public committee hearings. The result was 322 resolutions introduced by the delegates and vetted through six substantive committees. Fifty-six of the resolutions were debated in 10 plenary sessions. The result was 26 resolutions that passed and were consolidated into the 14 ballot questions proposed in 1986.

There is much more to learn about the 1986 convention. The Common Cause website contains five hours of video from a March conference we hosted with Roger Williams University School of Law, the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant University, and the League of Women Voters or Rhode Island. Included are talks by Professors Alan Tarr and Robert Williams from the Center for State Constitutional Studies at Rutgers University, perhaps the two leading authorities on state constitutions. Other materials we have added include information about the campaign finance from the election of delegates.

While the candidates you vote for on November 4th may be in office for four or eight years, changes to our state’s constitution may last for generations. In the coming weeks we hope you take the time to become educated about Question 3 and make sure on Election Day to go down the ballot and make your voice heard on this issue, no matter where you stand.

August 20, 2014August 20, 2014

ACLU’s Steve Brown: Nothing good came out of the 1986 Con-Con

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

At yesterday’s bi-partisan Preparatory Commission ahead of a report on “possible issues for consideration at a Constitutional Convention,” lawyer and Republican national committeeman Steven Frias, played the role of cross-examiner as he attempted to pin down the ACLU’s Steve Brown on the efficacy of the 1986 Constitutional Convention.

Noting that he was asking a “subjective question” Frias asked Brown “Have good amendments come of constitutional conventions in the past?”

Brown, who has only studied the 1986 convention in Rhode Island, answered, “Nothing that came out of the 1986 convention was worth it. No.”

“Not the Ethics Commission amendment?” pressed Frias.

“No, and that’s an interesting one,” countered Brown, “The Ethics Commission was one of the few, so-called ‘good government’ reforms that passed the convention and here we are a few years later, complaining… we need another convention in order to correct the language that was passed in 1986.”

Frias did not like Brown’s answer. “Would you agree,” he asked, “that the reason we are trying to change the language in the amendment is due to a [State] Supreme Court decision that was enunciated at the end of the last decade in regards to Senator Irons?”

“No,” answered Brown, “I would say it’s because of the ambiguity in the language [of the amendment] that was passed by the 1986 convention.”

Now visibly annoyed, Frias, who obviously feels that the Supreme Court decision was a case of judicial overreach and not a problem inherent in the language of the amendment, concluded, “Okay, thank you. It’s a legal interpretation.”

You can watch it here:

Also of interest was Brown’s description of the “bundling” of amendments. The 1986 Con-Con ultimately approved 25 amendments for consideration by voters. Because that many questions could not fit on the ballots, some amendments were bundled together, meaning that they had to be approved or rejected as a group. Of course, since the delegates to a Constitutional Convention are entirely self-directed, there are no limitations on the number of amendments that can be proposed.

April 14, 2014April 14, 2014

Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention: Why now?

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

The reason the debate about a constitutional convention is happening now is because RI is constitutionally obligated to do so. The 2014 election will mark 10 years since Rhode Islanders were last asked to have a convention. Since 1984, they’ve rejected it at each election. It’s unclear how they’ll vote this time.

To some extent, the pro-convention side has been portraying this as the last chance we’ll have for the next ten years. It’s imperative that we fix our problems through a constitutional convention, and that it be done by 2016. And while that’s a good case if you assume nothing else changes, it’s a weak reason to have a convention.

This is the first of a four-part series on a potential constitutional convention and why we should not have one this year. Read more later this week.

Legislators have the power to place the convention question on the ballot at any election. There’s many reasons why they will not, but a pretty obvious one is that there’s no constituent pressure to do so. And if there’s no constituent pressure, that means there isn’t a popular demand.

That’s a serious problem. While the convention might be the desire of outsider reformers who can’t get changes through the General Assembly, it’s not something they’re willing to push the General Assembly to do. Without that prior pressure and popular support, the pro-convention side looks less genuine in their desire to hold a convention to improve government and more like political opportunists taking advantage of a required process.

Regrouping and lobbying the General Assembly to place the convention on the ballot has numerous advantages. First, it helps build organizational capacity, which will be useful later for ensuring a serious reform faction among the delegates. Second, it enlists support before the question is required to be asked, forcing media coverage and public interest to happen before the year the question is placed on the ballot. Even if the effort is stymied for ten years, a concerted campaign will make the public far more receptive to a convention then if they’d been ignored.

April 3, 2014

McCutcheon decision another reason to avoid Con Con

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

Yesterday’s Supreme Court McCutcheon decision certainly means that the distorting power of money over what’s left of American democracy is not going to abate any time soon. Given this, perhaps we should think twice before opening the “Pandora’s Box” of a Constitutional Convention here in Rhode Island. At the forum held recently at Bryant University, Justice Robert Flanders Jr made the suspect claim that lobbyists would be at a loss to navigate the unknown corridors of power at a Con Con. Fortunately, Steve Brown of the ACLU quickly pointed out the paucity of this argument.

Lobbyists will be a part of the Constitutional Convention, were one to be held here in Rhode Island. Big money will enjoy yet another avenue to warp our politics and our society. Some say the risk is small, and the gains to be had are big. This is exactly what they tell you at Foxwoods, but gambling isn’t a sound economic plan or an intelligent political strategy.

March 30, 2014

Mattiello championing ethics reform is laughable

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

Former Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Judge Robert Flanders Jr., did not intend to get the biggest laugh at the recent forum on the possibility of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) being held in Rhode Island, but he did.

The forum, sponsored by the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant, the Roger Williams University School of Law, Common Cause Rhode Island and the Rhode Island League of Women Voters, was attended by over one hundred participants, most of whom were of the politically savvy sort interested in the possible consequences of a Con-Con.

Flanders got his (unintentional) laugh when he suggested that the Rhode Island House of Representatives, under the leadership of the new Speaker, Nicholas Mattiello, might champion ethics reform.

It should be noted that Representative Joseph Almeida, Speaker Mattiello’s choice for deputy minority whip, has already come under scrutiny from the Board of Elections and the Attorney General’s office for “a campaign-finance case involving Almeida’s “misreporting’’ of contributions and expenditures.” Apparently Mattiello was unaware of Rep. Almeida’s circumstances when he tagged him for his post and it is unknown what action Mattiello intends to take in light of these revelations, though the safe bet is “none.”

You can see the comment Flanders made in the video below. (I’ll have more videos from the forum on RI Future soon.)

“You Laugh,” said Judge Flanders in response to the laughter, “It seems improbable.”

Judge Flanders’ larger point was that without the threat of a Constitutional Convention, Speaker Mattiello will have no reason to tighten ethical standards, but if a Con-Con appears in the offing, and if the convention delegates seem willing to enact real ethics reform from outside the House structure, then Mattiello might be feel compelled to enact his own reform or risk looking weak and ineffectual on ethics.

Oddly, few people present at the forum seemed to think that Speaker Mattiello in particular or the General Assembly as a whole was much interested in doing the right thing and tightening ethical standards on their own. It is partly this lack of faith in the General Assembly that makes people support the panacea of a Con-Con in the first place.

December 3, 2013December 3, 2013

Say no to ‘Con-Con’ because delegates aren’t accountable

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

It’s not on the radar of the average Rhode Islander yet but in 2014, as voters decide upon a new governor, we will also be deciding on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention. Every ten years voters get to decide whether or not to hold the Con-Con, and the last two times the measure was placed on the ballot (1994 and 2004) it failed. This time many groups on the right and the left of the political spectrum are gearing up to push hard on this issue.

The push seems to be born out of frustration with the way the General Assembly works (or doesn’t). One recent example of the General Assembly being out of touch with the wishes of Rhode Island voters is the legislative body’s recent inaction on eliminating the master lever. At State House hearings no one testified in favor of keeping the master lever and public support for removal was robust, yet the General Assembly failed to act. A case can be made that some members of the General Assembly should be held accountable for this failure.

Some are suggesting that the Con-Con will be a place to address this failure. Elected convention delegates could decide to put the decision on eliminating the master lever directly to the voters. The goal of eliminating the master lever might be accomplished but what about the goal of holding the General Assembly accountable? The General Assembly might start to feel even more able to punt on certain issues, because the Con-Con is not the process by which legislators are held accountable

If a Con-Con is approved in the 2014 election, then Rhode Island voters will have a chance to go back to the polls in 2015 and elect delegates to represent their views. Being a delegate is a one-time position that will begin and end with the convention. The delegates will consider and advance several changes to the Rhode Island State Constitution which will then be voted on by the public in 2016.

This is the wrong way to effect change. Right now, the General Assembly can be held accountable by voters: If you don’t like the way they are behaving, you can remove them from office by voting for their opponents in the next election. The Con-Con delegates, on the other hand, have no such accountability. Delegates, unconcerned with being re-elected, can suffer no penalty for failing voters. Delegate candidates could conceivably run as moderates and then work to effect radical changes once elected.

The most powerful penalty we can assign our elected officials, being tossed out of office by voters in a fair election, does not apply to Con-Con delegates. The job of a Con-Con delegate is to alter, perhaps fundamentally, the Constitution. Under Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that effectively ruled that dollars are the equivalent of speech, an unlimited amount of money could flood Rhode Island from out-of-state special interest groups. Think ALEC on steroids. Con-Con delegates will be barraged by special interests supplied with bottomless wealth, perhaps seriously damaging the process.

If it is worth millions to rewrite our laws, how much is rewriting the Constitution going to be worth?

Civil rights could be severely impacted by a Con-Con. There is nothing to stop the delegates from putting measures on the ballot that might reverse the recent, hard-won marriage equality law, for instance. Polarizing issues are especially vulnerable: guns, reproductive justice, immigration, environmental and economic issues are all primed to be hijacked by special interests. Even if voters ultimately vote against the worst ideas the Con-Con advances, it will come at the staggering costs advertising for such elections has reached in recent years. Rhode Island will become a political battleground on a plethora of issues, and citizens will be barraged by advertising and advocates run ragged fighting for and against the proposed changes to the Constitution.

Our state legislature is based on the ideals of representational democracy. Our General Assembly, despite its many problems is the way in which we as citizens engage with important policy issues. The Con-Con is an attempt to perform an end run around the process, and like any high risk play, the end result may be amazing, but it will most likely end in a disaster of wasted money and effort.

October 22, 2013October 22, 2013

Interview: Gayle Goldin on the General Assembly

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

Freshman Sen. Gayle Goldin (Democrat, District 3 – Providence) won national praise for Rhode Island this session when she helped shepherd through legislation that expanded the state’s Temporary Disability Insurance to cover workers who need to take time to care for a new addition to the family or a seriously ill relative. Recently, she was kind enough to sit down with RI Future for a wide-ranging interview. The following transcript has been lightly edited for written media.

RI Future: So Rhode Island’s seen a lot of female leaders stepped up and come to the fore in public life, but recently RI Public Radio’s Ian Donnis pointed out that less than a third of GA membership in the Democratic Party is women and less than a fifth in the Republican Party are women. Given that the most recent census estimate for Rhode Island is that over half our population are women, how do we rectify that imbalance and what policies can the General Assembly take?

Sen. Gayle Goldin: We rank 18th in the country in terms of the number of women in our General Assembly. Colorado is number one, and 42% of its General Assembly is female, so we have a ways to go to reach that first slot that Colorado has. I think that it’s not necessarily a role of the General Assembly itself, although I think having a woman as Senate President, and she is one of only a handful of women in the country serving that role, makes a difference. There many organizations that work on trying to increase the number of women in office. In my day job, I work at Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, and one of my tasks is overseeing the Women’s Policy Institute, which is designed to get more women engaged in public policy, generally and to really increase the voice of women in the policy arena. But there are many other organizations that work directly to recruit women into running for office and to support them in doing so. There’s been a whole host of research that identifies what various barriers are, and why women choose to run or don’t choose to run. I think certainly policy changes that are systemic changes to the way we work and live in general will increase the number of women who will also run for office.

RIF: So what would those policy changes be?

GG: Paid family leave was a big initiative of mine and a driving force behind that is because I believe having policies like that will create a more equitable society where both men and women can be engaged in the roles that they want to be engaged in. When we have universal childcare, when we invest in pre-kindergarten, when we make sure that we have eliminated the gender wage gap, women will more easily access all the roles they want to take, and that’s where we’ll hit a point where more women are holding office.

RIF: What was the most difficult part in transitioning to being a state senator from when you were a regular citizen?

GG: Well, I think that, and the literature certainly bears this out in terms of other women running for office, that fundraising is a very difficult task. I have been in the nonprofit sector almost my whole entire career and I have no problem fundraising for a nonprofit organization, but it’s a much different thing to shift and say “if you invest in me, then I’m working towards goals to change our society” and while I know people are really invested in those goals and really want to make them happen, it’s a dynamic shift go from fundraising for an organization to fundraising for your own campaign and I think that was one of the biggest challenges for me.

RIF: So was it harder to sell yourself than a cause… but you’re still selling a cause, right?

GG: [Laughs] Right. You’re still selling- yes! But there is a moment where you have to recognize that it’s okay to ask for money for yourself to help that cause and move that cause forward.

RIF: To me, it seems that the General Assembly has a set of traditions and unofficial rules that aren’t really written down that it’s just picked up over the years of operating. How do you go about learning all those? What’s the process for that?

GG: I’ve done public policy research and advocacy for many years through work and volunteering, so I’ve been up in the General Assembly in different capacities before and certainly that helps. I think that helps anybody who runs for office if you’ve already testified in hearings and seen what the system is, then you can understand it better. The staff in the Senate are absolutely incredible, and have been a wonderful resource in just understanding the plenty of written rules that you know you need to follow as well! I’ve really relied on the staff helping me figure out how to maneuver through my first year, and certainly many of the other senators have been very welcoming to the freshman class and have helped us understand how to do our jobs better.

RIF: What ways does the staff help?

GG: It can be from as simple things as in the first week of session… so sometimes the General Assembly will recognize the death of somebody or some significant event by reading a bill on the floor, and so in the first week of session, there was a condolence for somebody who had passed away and just not even realizing that it’s our job to stand up as basically seconding that as a way of showing our condolences. So just having staff behind me saying “okay, you need to stand up now” [laughs]. It’s as simple as learning those kinds of rules to really understanding what are the roles we can take within hearings, what kind of questions we- well not what kind of questions we can ask, but if my angle is to change public policy in a certain way, how can I best use my role as a state senator to do so.

Read the second part of Sam Howard’s interview with Sen. Gayle Goldin tomorrow.

July 15, 2013July 15, 2013

What If RI had a different electoral system? (Part 1 of MMP RI)

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

Example ballot for a mixed-member proportional representation system (via Wikipedia) — Example ballot of a mixed-member proportional representation system (via Wikipedia)

Rhode Island is entering the 2014 election cycle with major decisions to make. First, there will be the election of all of the state’s general officers. Second, there will be the usual elections of the entirety of the the General Assembly; commonplace as it may be, it has a major impact on Rhode Island. Thirdly, there is a requirement to ask whether Rhode Islanders want to hold a constitutional convention.

The last that is the most important. A lot of things will be at play here. There is impetus for reform across the political spectrum. Which means many competing interests as to what should be changed and why and how.

There’s also the issue that there’s an established political set that may not want to see large-scale reform, and that will also matter.

Then that each delegate will be elected from across the 75 Rhode Island House districts drawn after the 2010 US Census, meaning that many of the dynamics that go into House races will apply to the race for the delegates.

Finally, we should take into consideration that a constitutional convention cannot fundamentally transform power dynamics. What it can do is transform how those dynamics play out. Thus, the abolition of slavery and acknowledgement that all Americans were equal didn’t suddenly equalize all Americans. What it did do is prevent the enslavement of black Americans. It took a hundred years of resistance to bring about legislation that would guarantee equal access to rights, and even then the structures built up during the whole of American history continue to discriminate.

What I specifically want to look at in this series are constitutional changes that transform elections; which can best be described as transforming how (and which) citizens can access the power of the state. Specifically, I want to create a picture of how the General Assembly would look under a different electoral system; one that prized balancing the General Assembly to the votes for each party.

This system is known as mixed-member proportional representation (MMP). It’s not the be-all and end-all of electoral systems, but it’s better than the current system, which is known as plurality voting or “first-past-the-post” (FPTP). I’ll explain the difference in a bit. But first, I want to talk about the last six elections in Rhode Island.

This is Part 1 of the MMP RI series, which posits what Rhode Island’s political landscape would look like if we had switched to a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) system in 2002. Part 2 is a retrospective of the last six elections.