Harold Metts – RI Future

August 8, 2016

Sierra Club statement on National Grid LNG proposal

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

The Rhode Island Sierra Club strongly praises the bold climate leadership of the nine Providence legislators who publicly expressed their opposition to National Grid’s proposal for a $180 million fracked gas liquefaction facility at Fields Point in the Port of Providence.

Last week, Providence State Representatives Aaron Regunberg, Joe Almeida, Grace Diaz, John Lombardi, Chris Blazejewski and Edie Ajello, along with Providence State Senators Juan Pichardo, Gayle Goldin and Harold Metts submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) describing their deep concerns with National Grid’s proposal. We wholeheartedly agree with their statement that this project represents a boondoggle for ratepayers, an unjustifiable safety risk for the local community, and the kind of unacceptable doubling down on fossil fuel infrastructure that will guarantee we blow past our legally mandated emission reduction goals. And we are proud to see so many legislative leaders refusing to condemn our beautiful state to a future of climate catastrophe.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza. Rather than making any effort to live up to his rhetoric on climate change, Mayor Elorza has chosen to partner with National Grid and help them advance their proposal with tacit support and active negotiations for a Tax Stabilization Agreement to smooth out the utility’s tax payments over time.

Stopping climate change is the moral crisis of our time – and it will only be possible if we end these vast investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that guarantee our addiction to fossil fuels continues past our planet’s point of no return. We all need to join in this fight. Rhode Island Sierra Club pledges our support for elected officials who take this moral imperative seriously, like the nine Providence legislators who came out in opposition to the LNG proposal last week. And we condemn in the strongest possible terms the cowardice of self-proclaimed climate leaders who choose to give in to the fossil fuel industry. Mayor Elorza, your actions speak much louder than your words – please, do the right thing and join your legislative delegation in standing up for Providence’s current and future citizens.

April 22, 2016

Former prison administrator supports changes to 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

Following President Obama’s executive order limiting solitary confinement in the federal prison system, this disciplinary method has begun receiving greater scrutiny across our country. In the past few months I have heard a range of voices – nationally and locally, from mental health professionals to formerly incarcerated Rhode Islanders – speak out about this practice. As someone who spent over three decades working at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, I would like to add my perspective.

I retired in July 2012 after 33 years with RIDOC. After holding several administrative roles, I became the Warden of the Women’s Facilities in 1991. After ten years in that position, I was promoted to Assistant Director of RehabiIitative Services, one of three members of Director Wall’s leadership team, where I served for eleven more years. I worked very closely with Director Wall and have great admiration for him. He is one of the most well respected Corrections Directors in the country and is responsible for bringing the Department into compliance with many of the highest standards in the field. Over the course of my career I also supervised Officers and professional staff. I knew many of them and can speak to the professionalism and responsible behavior of the great majority of them.

That said, from my firsthand experience within the corrections system, I strongly support legislation introduced by Representative Aaron Regunberg and Senator Harold Metts to guarantee commonsense protections against the inappropriate use of prolonged solitary confinement. I believe the reasonable reforms they propose are important not only from a humane perspective, for I have seen how segregation harms individuals and their families, but also from a public safely perspective. Too often, inmates come out of Isolation angrier and more dangerous than they were before. Some, unfortunately, are released directly to the community from Segregation when their sentence ends. If we have not done all we can to change that person’s behavior, he or she will continue to be a threat to us upon their return.

I have observed and talked with many inmates who had been locked in Isolation for extended periods of time, and over the years it became painfully clear to me that inmates subjected to long term isolation often suffer irreparable harm. My observations have been confirmed by a growing body of research indicating that periods of longer than 15 days in Isolation results in serious mental health damage.

The ability to isolate people from general population is an important tool for institutional management. This legislation does not eliminate the use of Isolation. It only sets reasonable time limits and basic humanitarian baselines, while requiring adequate treatment and programming.

Viable alternatives to Isolation exist for most offenders. Therapeutic communities, nonviolence training, and behavioral training are examples of approaches used in some prisons including the ACI. Unfortunately, in Rhode Island rehabilitation receives only 15% of the budget. It is impossible to provide these programs to most of the inmates who could benefit from them. Every inmate in Isolation would benefit from the introduction of therapeutic programming and nonviolence training.

Isolation should be utilized only for as long as necessary to protect staff and inmates from physical harm. It loses its meaning and becomes tragic when it is extended beyond reasonable periods of time. And it is especially painful to vulnerable people, the mentally ill, emotionally unstable and many female offenders who have been deeply affected by isolation. Think about yourself in that situation – being isolated from human contact for months at a time would affect any of us.

The legislation before the General Assembly presents a real opportunity to begin to reshape a system that as it exists today, fails to truly accomplish its mission. As someone who helped lead this system for decades, I don’t say this lightly. I feel proud of the accomplishments we achieved over the years. But I feel compelled to speak now, and I hope our state will do the right thing, and the smart thing, by reforming a practice which has so much potential to damage our fellow Rhode Islanders and our community as a whole.

April 4, 2016April 5, 2016

The experience of 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

The United Nations has called solitary confinement torture. President Obama recently condemned its use. In New York, a judge just resolved a class-action lawsuit by ensuring that there are legal limits on the amount of time a prisoner can be kept alone in a cell.

In Rhode Island, we call solitary confinement “segregated” confinement.

But what is solitary confinement, really? Can any of us who have not experienced it truly understand it?

Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary heard hours of testimony on solitary confinement in Rhode Island. Most of the time was taken up by prison officials and others explaining the present policy of “segregated” confinement to the Senators on the committee. But the most emotional, moving and disturbing testimony came from former inmates, people who have endured solitary confinement and who are still haunted by the experience.

Jessica Gonzalez was the first juvenile ever sentenced as an adult in Rhode Island. At the age of 14 she was sent to the ACI. Her story should not only make us question solitary confinement, it should make us rethink the entire way we deal with juvenile defendants.

John Prince, who I write about often because of his work with DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality), spent decades in prison. He speaks here about his experiences with solitary confinement.

JoseDavi Lamoso is an organizer with Black and Pink, one of the groups pushing for these legislative reforms. While serving his sentence in prison Lamoso was held in solitary “several times.” Lamoso bluntly states that “solitary confinement is torture.”

Osiris spent ten days naked and alone in a cold room with no mattress or toilet paper. This stint of solitary confinement was the worst thing to happen to him in his eleven and a half years in prison.

The General Assembly is considering bills that would curtail the use of solitary confinement in the Rhode Island prison system. Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senator Harold Metts‘ bill that would prohibit the use of solitary confinement for specific vulnerable populations (juveniles, elderly and the mentally ill), 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 videos above are all from that hearing.

A companion bill, submitted by Representative Aaron Regunberg, will be heard in House Judiciary this Wednesday, room 201, at 4:45pm.

February 5, 2016

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

Rep. 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]

November 20, 2015November 20, 2015

RIPTA Riders Alliance rallies against elderly/disabled fare increases

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

The RIPTA Riders Alliance held a rally and press conference outside the State House yesterday to call attention to the proposed increases in fares for elderly and disabled passengers. As has been reported here before, in order to close a budget gap, the General Assembly and Governor Gina Raimondo authorized RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority) to do away with free rides. In response, RIPTA is planning to charge, “all disabled people and seniors $1.00 per ride during peak AND off-peak hours, regardless of those passengers’ income levels.”

Other fare increases for monthly and weekly passes and transfers have been proposed, as well as eliminating discounts on multi-ride tickets.

Many seniors and disabled passengers live on fixed incomes and will be negatively impacted by this rate increase. Though the state will provide rides for scheduled doctor’s visits, free rides will not be provided for shopping, visits with friends and relatives, or attending political rallies. Those stuck at home will face isolation and declining health outcomes.

Balancing budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable populations in a state that continues to cut taxes on the wealthiest, is a moral outrage.

State Senator Harold Metts and Representative Aaron Regunberg both addressed the crowd and promised to revisit RIPTA funding when the new session of the General Assembly begins in January.

Here are RIPTA’s proposed fare hikes for early 2016, from the RIPTA Riders Alliance press release:

SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE will be charged $1 per ride. Disabled people must go back and submit proof that they’re disabled again.

MONTHLY PASSES will go up from $62 to $70. Weekly passes will go up from $23 to $25. The 15-ride pass will be discontinued and replaced with a 10-ride ticket costing $20.

TRANSFERS, which now cost 50 cents, will double in price. The new transfers will cost $1 for regular riders and are usable for travel anywhere in a 2-hour period.

SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE will pay 50 cents per transfer. If they want a monthly pass, that will be $35 per month. Weekly passes will be $12.50.

October 28, 2015October 29, 2015

Sens Metts, Pichardo ask RIPTA not to raise fare prices on elderly, disabled

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

State senators Harold Metts and Juan Pichardo have requested in writing that the Rhode Island Public Transportation Agency cancel a proposal to raise fare prices on elderly, disabled and homeless riders. The two Democrats who represent poor areas of Providence wrote a joint letter to RIPTA Board Chairman Scott Avedesian, also the mayor of Warwick, and to Jonathan Womer, the director of the state Office of Management and Budget, imploring them to reconsider the rate increase.

“Hurting the most vulnerable is not the answer; and we can not support the proposed increase,” they wrote in a letter.

“The elderly and disabled who are also poor are the last people who should be made to shoulder the burden of RIPTA’s budget shortfalls,” said Pichardo, of District 2, in a press release from the State House. “It’s hard enough for them to put food on the table and keep their heat on. They don’t have money to start paying every time they need to go anywhere. This is going to have a devastating effect on their households, health and quality of life.”

Metts, who represents District 6, said, “Not only is this going to hurt the most vulnerable people financially, the result is going to be that these folks simply can’t go anywhere. Many elderly and disabled people aren’t able to walk very far, so this is going to have the effect of making them virtual shut-ins. This will isolate them on top of adding to their financial struggles. The effects of this plan are morally unacceptable, and RIPTA needs to identify a way to fund its services without doing so much harm to those least able to take the impact.”

Both letters are copies in full below.

The RIPTA Board has been considering increasing fare prices on elderly and disabled riders who earn less than 200 percent of the annual poverty level income to one dollar. Currently, they ride for free.

Here’s the letter to Avedesian:

October 27, 2015
Hon. Scott Avedisian, Chairperson
RIPTA
705 Elmwood Avenue
Providence RI, 02007

Dear Chairperson Avedisian,

We are writing you in opposition to fare increases on seniors and the handicapped currently being proposed by RIPTA to the Office of Regulatory Reform, under the umbrella of the Office of Management & Budget. The sustainability of RIPTA should not be at the expense of the most vulnerable poor.

We have received several telephone calls from constituents and advocacy groups about this. They are extremely concerned and outraged by the negative impact this will have. The poor and handicapped need public transportation to buy food at the grocery market, keep their doctor’s appointments, etc. This population is struggling as it is; and price increases for those on limited fixed income should never have been considered.

Public transportation is the only mode for them to move about the neighborhoods, city and state. As a result of this proposed action, people will feel limited and this will affect their mental state with added stress.

Public transportation is very important to the Rhode Island economy. We disagree; however, with the March study on revenue and technology, authorized by RIPTA. Hurting the most vulnerable is not the answer; and we can not support the proposed increase.

Sincerely yours,
________________                                                         ___________________
Harold M. Metts,                                                               Juan M. Pichardo
Senate District #6                                                             Senate District #2

HMM

cc. Governor Gina Raimondo
Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello
Madam President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed
Mr. Jonathan Womer, Director
Mr. Raymond Studley, Director of RIPTA

And to Womer:

October 27, 2015
Mr. Jonathan Womer, Director
Office of Management & Budget
1 Capitol Hill 4th Floor
Providence, RI 02908

Dear Mr. Womer,

We understand that the office of Regulatory Reform is under your umbrella, as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. We are opposed to the proposed 50% fair increase by RIPTA, submitted to your agency for approval. The sustainability of RIPTA should not be at the expense of the poor, handicapped and most vulnerable.

People on fixed incomes don’t have options. This population uses public transportation to buy food at the market, go to their doctor’s appointments, etc. The most vulnerable will be severely and negatively impacted.

In closing, please reject this proposal. Ask RIPTA to find a more suitable option that we all can support.

Sincerely yours,
________________                                                         __________________

Harold M. Metts                                                                Juan M. Pichardo
Senate District #6                                                             Senate District #2

cc. Governor Gina Raimondo
Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello
Madam President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed

July 15, 2015

Raimondo signs Community-Police Relationship Act into law

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

The room didn’t seem quite large enough for all the supporters that came out to watch Governor Gina Raimondo sign the Comprehensive Community-Police Relationship Act into law on Tuesday. The Act, a collaboration between legislators, law enforcement, and community members, seeks to analyze data that officers collect, as well as further protect juveniles and pedestrians.

“I speak as a governor and as a mother of two small children,” Raimondo said, “and I think we’ve all been troubled by the recent headlines all around this country about law enforcement.”

The governor added that this is a significant step in addressing a much larger problem, but said that she believes this will help keep communities safer, and make law enforcement more effective.

“Although this is an important piece of legislation, and one that is going to deliver real results, you all know this one bill isn’t enough. We must be actively engaged in our communities, and be committed to keeping our families and communities safe,” she said.

Representative Joseph Almeida (D- District 12), the main sponsor for the House version of the bill, said that it is a product of working for, and with, the people.

“You have two choices when you get elected,” he said. “You can be a politician and tell people what they want to hear, or you can be a legislator and tell them the truth. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

Senator Harold Metts (D- District 6), who was the Senate sponsor, spoke on how the bill will allow Rhode Island communities to heal with one another, and promote togetherness between communities and police officers.

“We were challenged to take our heads out of the desert sands of denial, and drink from the wells of equality, justice, and brotherhood,” he said. “Instead of having separation, and having the parties be polarized, they decided to work together. Instead of separation, we had collaboration.”

Rep. Joseph Almeida sharing his thoughts on the act

The act requires that law enforcement officers include in the ethnicity of the driver stopped, the reason, whether or not there was a search, and whether or not there was contraband taken from the vehicle in their traffic stop reports. It also prohibits officers from subjecting juveniles or pedestrians to a search without probable cause, and requires them to notify a driver why they are being stopped.

Colonel Steven O’Donnell, the superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police, said that the practices laid out in the Act are already happening.

“Almost all the information in that bill is something that State Police already do by policy. We’ve been doing it for years, so it didn’t take much to sit down with the community, and most of them we know very, very well,” he said. O’Donnell also gave credit to the House and Senate for being open minded about the subject of policing, particularly Senator Metts, who took part in the State Police Training Academy several years ago.

“Better training, better understanding, and better communication is really why that bill passed,” he said. “Everybody sitting down, some people losing some of their egos on both ends of the table, and coming to an agreement.”

Over the next 48 months, data will be collected from every traffic stop to determine whether or not there are racial disparities in Rhode Island’s policing system. Governor Raimondo said this data would be used to make informed decisions concerning the system.

“I think it’s clear there’s more that has to be done in Rhode Island and all around the country. You can’t look at what happened in Ferguson and South Carolina and think we’re doing enough, so what this bill says is that we’re committed to making changes based on facts, and making sure that our streets are as safe as possible, and that we’re protecting everybody’s civil rights in the process,” she said.

June 25, 2015June 25, 2015

Bill to help end racial profiling will become law

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

Legislation to help mend the bonds between the police and community after a year of national duress will cross Governor Gina Raimondo’s desk to be signed into law.

The bill, known as the Comprehensive Community-Police Relationship act, requires that all police departments collect data on a subject’s race during traffic stops. The information will then be submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Office of Highway Safety, to be put in a yearly report showing what has been done to address any racial disparities. The act also makes illegal “consent searches” of juveniles, unless the officer has probable cause or reason of suspicion.

“It’s more communication between the police, the community, and juveniles,” said Representative Joseph Almeida (D-District 12), the main sponsor of the bill on the House side. “All we’re asking for is more probable cause, and right to be stopped.”

Almeida also said that the act is already helping to build communication between people of color and police.

“Communication is a big issue in civil rights,” he said.

Senator Harold Metts (D-District 6), the bill’s main sponsor on the Senate side, believes that after the events in Baltimore, New York, and Ferguson, communication is more needed now than it ever was before.

“We have to work together,” he said. “Even despite all the tension that’s across the country and across the world, the community and the police have to work together to build trust, because that’s the only way we’re going to have safer communities.”

According to Metts, different groups have met over the past eight months on both sides of the issue to come up with the version of the act that has been passed. Although the legal aspects of the bill concerning racial profiling and traffic stops were certainly important for him, there was something bigger that everyone seemed to miss.

“The important thing that everybody overlooked, for me, was how two opposed parties, initially, got together, and realized that they had to work together to come up with this compromise bill,” he said.

Metts added that the bill is especially important in his district, which is largely comprised of people of color. People have spoken to him about racial profiling and the way it dehumanizes them. Metts himself has been a victim of such profiling.

“Everybody wants to be treated with respect and fairly, on both sides,” he said.

Opponents to this bill, and similar bills all over the country, have argued that making officers take this extra step, or having to fill out more paperwork, is too much work. Representative Almeida, who is a retired police officer, believes otherwise.

“That’s bull,” he said. “That’s not true. Paperwork is good because we were told to form a paper trail. It’s not going to give them any more work. Besides, if you look to the right [in a police cruiser], there’s a computer there. It’s not going to stop anything.”

The specific requirements of the bill are fairly straightforward. Searches conducted by police officers should be documented and include the date, time, location, and probably cause leading up to the search. Those who have been recorded with video or audio equipment have the right to view that footage, provided that it does not compromise the investigation. It also establishes a procedure for searches of juveniles without a warrant. Officers can only ask for the juvenile’s consent if there is probable cause, and if there is, the juvenile has the right to refuse the search.

The collection of this data would begin July 2016, and would be put toward the Office of Highway Safety’s yearly report, as well as a quarterly summary of the monthly information provided by police departments.

March 27, 2013

Metts Opposes Marriage Equality On ‘Biblical Principles’

Judge Ronald R Lagueux, in his ruling in Ahlquist v. City of Cranston that removed the prayer banner from the walls of the auditorium at Cranston High School West, described the Cranston School Committee’s open meetings to discuss the prayer banner as at times having the tenor of “a religious revival.”

This is something those who have followed the testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the subject of Marriage Equality can understand as the debate seems to center not on issues of secular laws in a secular government, but on whether our laws should be based upon certain individual’s narrow understanding of Biblical law.

Senator Frank Lombardi, who served on the Cranston School Board during the Prayer Banner kerfuffle and was one of the prayer banner’s most vocal defenders, drew an active comparison to the issue of Marriage Equality and the issue of the Prayer Banner, as did several witnesses and Senator Harold Metts. Since that time in Cranston, no sense of doubt about the rightness of mixing church and state has entered Lombardi’s mind, despite Judge Lagueux’s reasoned and eloquent decision. Responding to the testimonies of Chris and Kara Young, Ronald L’Heureux and Michael Krzywonos at Thursday night’s hearing Lombardi said, “We can’t defrock ourselves of our religious beliefs.”

Ron L’Heureux, a minister with New Life Worship Center, has, according to Senator Metts, supplied him with fascinating historical material about the founding fathers and religious liberty. The problem is that L’Heureux is a follower of pseudo-historian David Barton, who has fabricated a false history of the United States recasting the founders as Christian ideologues intent on establishing some sort of Christian theocracy that is at best “tolerant” of dissenting religious opinions. L’Heureux closed his testimony by addressing Senator Lombardi directly, assuring him that L’Heureux has filed a brief in Ahlquist v Cranston to have Judge Lagueux’s decision overturned. That’s right, L’Heureux is still quixotically fighting the Cranston Prayer Banner issue.

Senator Metts is no fool. He waited until Governor Lincoln Chafee delivered his testimony, then, with the Governor fixed in his seat as a captive audience and the news cameras rolling in time for the six o’clock news, Metts went into his first long speech of the night. Right away, Metts brought up his religion, saying, “I’m a sinner saved by grace and I come before you with great humility.”

Those who value the separation of church and state and a secular society found themselves wondering what this could possibly have to do with the issue before the committee. The comments by Metts were not simply out of place, they were inappropriate.

Metts went on to say that he is undaunted by the calls and emails he has received over the years that refer to him as a religious bigot. He maintained that in America, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and to religious liberty. Not satisfied with talking up his religion, Metts challenged the very idea that Marriage Equality is a civil rights issue.

“Many in my community take exception to the gay rights activists that hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement as it pertains to African Americans. What I tell people is that I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to but I can’t change my color. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms can never be compared to what African Americans went through in slavery.”

As Katrina Chaves pointed out yesterday, in covering the Supreme Court hearing on California’s Prop 8, African American Pastor Rev. Bill Owens made the same sort of comparison at an anti gay marriage rally. Chaves concluded that, “engaging in ‘Oppression Olympics’ serves absolutely no one.”

Metts talked about the fall of Rome and Greece being due to “moral decay.” He mourned the loss of Ten Commandment displays and mandatory prayers in public schools. Metts also said that those who claim the Bible is outdated and no longer applies are committing, in his opinion, blasphemy.

“My main opposition to this bill,” said Metts, “is based on Biblical principles.”

When not striking a strident religious tone, Metts sometimes came off as strangely paranoid and loopy. “The nations that follow God’s word will be blessed and those who rejected it were cursed. Need I remind you of the Babylonian captivity in ancient Israel? I’ll probably be gone by then but I certainly don’t want my grandchildren to be taken into captivity in China or elsewhere.”

Not for the last time did Metts talked about the redeeming power of Jesus. At several points during the long night of testimony Metts would take the time to make long, digressive rambles about his religious convictions, at times holding up and reading directly from his Bible, which he assured us all he reads every morning and every night, every day of the year.

“Even if we live to be a hundred years old, we’re only on this side of eternity for a short time,” said Metts during one of his long digressions, “It’s the other side of eternity we should be concerned with.” Later in the same speech, Metts compared the battle over Marriage Equality to “a cosmic battle between God and Satan, and whether we like it or not, we’re part of it.”

An elected state Senator regaling the crowd with frankly childish mythologies about a cosmic battle between God and Satan for human souls in the context of a hearing about marriage equality should be worrisome enough for anyone concerned about liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state, but the most alarming moment came later when Senator Metts made the following comment to Senator Juan Pichardo, a supporter of Marriage Equality:

“Senator Pichardo, we’re good buddies, and [marriage equality] is probably the only issue we disagree on. The problems you cited in society, the problem is that the further we move away from this [Metts held up his Bible] the more problems you’re going to see. When you align with scripture, that’s when you see things get a little bit better.”

Metts might disagree with Pichardo on the issue of equality, but in calling for a theocratic form of government based on the Bible instead of our current system of secular democracy Metts is demonstrating a disagreement with the entire system of American government and the oath he took to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn into office.

What is the difference, aside from the title of the book involved, between Metts’ view of a government based on his Bible and a fundamentalist Muslim advocating for Sharia law? One answer is that Metts can get elected as a Christian fundamentalist, but no Muslim with comparable views would stand a chance. Recall that Metts considers denigrating the Bible to be blasphemy. The Biblical punishment for blasphemy is death.

Can Metts really want our society to align with Biblical scripture? Such an idea is barbaric.

Later, after listening to a story from Jen Saarinen, a concerned high school teacher worried that feelings of inferiority might take hold in LGBTQ students concerned about their second class status as citizens in a state without Marriage Equality, and about the effects of bullying on LGBTQ teens, Metts claimed that as an educator with 31 years of experience, he felt the rules of the school protected everyone, and though he had to protect many students, they “really never had that problem back then.” That problem being LGBTQ kids being bullied.

This of course, is a classic tactic in the fight against rules in public schools that add sexual preference and gender identification to race, religion, disability and other identifiers of diversity that need to be protected against bigotry and bullying. Brian Camenker of MassResistance, a friend and ally of Metts, constantly rails against new codes that might protect LGBTQ students.

Metts’ solution to the problem of bullying is as predictable as it is fatuous. “I wonder if there’s a correlation to when they took the Ten Commandments out of public buildings. I wonder if there’s a correlation when they took prayer out of the schools. I wonder if there’s a correlation as we try to remove God from his creation that we had the Columbine and the other tragedies. So these are some of the things that I see.” Metts added that he has seen kids in schools “chastised for their religious beliefs, and that shouldn’t happen either.” Metts provided no examples of the ongoing bullying that Christian kids receive in schools, or any evidence that Christian kids are on the receiving end of more bullying than LGBTQ kids.

In my own testimony before the committee I tried to make the point that religious concerns are incidental to the question at hand. Marriage equality is a secular issue, and all questions as to whether it violates someone’s religious beliefs are beside the point. I said that the ideas that “homosexuality is an abomination” or that “marriage equality is God’s will” are unimportant. The two positions not only talk at cross-purposes and to no avail, but to a Humanist/atheist like myself the two positions are equally nonsensical.

Metts replied to my testimony by completely missing my point. Metts proceeded to read the Bible to me, specifically the Gospel of Matthew 14:4-5. I wonder if Metts would have thought it appropriate to read from his holy book if someone declared their Jewish or other non-Christian beliefs? In point of fact, Metts avoided going after any other non-Christians directly. Metts reserved his highhanded Christian authoritarianism for the first person who identified as an atheist. This is in itself a form of Christian privilege and bullying, the kind that Metts denies happens in public schools.

Metts is an active supporter of the Faith Alliance, a group I have identified time and again as being at least in part an anti-LGBTQ hate group due to its inclusion of Brian Camenker’s MassResistance. Metts named checked the Faith Alliance as he complemented Pastor David Rodriguez, one of the architects of the group. I’m sure Metts sees the Faith Alliance as operating without hate, and would certainly repudiate the views of Brian Camenker if given the chance. On the other hand, here’s a photo of Metts and Camenker taken during the ant-Marriage Equality Rally back in January. They seem like good friends.

Though it did not seem like it at the time, perhaps I affected Metts with my testimony after all, as an hour after I left the building he brought me up in a rambling, nearly incoherent eight minute long religious sermon. Metts’ speech was a blatant and embarrassing display of Senatorial privilege and religious entitlement. Referring to the written testimony I handed in, Metts said:

“The Humanist/atheist said that maybe there’s 37% of the population classify themselves as nonbelievers. Well I’m not surprised by that because what happened was that they took the Ten Commandments out of the school they took the prayers out of the school and if you’re a Christian kid in school today, you’re chastised… If anybody is chastised, it’s Christians!“

Playing off the testimony of another speaker, Metts continued, “You know, the whole notion of looking to government to justify sin, that resonated because we’re all sinners. We know that.”

Then, in case anyone was wondering how Deacon Metts became so expert in the minutia of God’s will and the truth of his particular form of Christianity, Metts kindly explained:

“As far as knowing God’s word, how I know God’s word is, I study it. Bible study. I’ve got a guide in the back of my Bible. I start January 1st, the Old Testament in the morning and the New Testament at night and at the end of the year I’ve read the whole Bible. I’ve been doing it for years.”

Just to be clear, this lesson on religion was paid for by Rhode Island taxpayers, on Rhode Island taxpayers’ time.

Metts believes that when he needs to know something, “God will reveal it to me in scripture.”

Metts then went on to make his second impassioned case for Jesus Christ. “When we accept Christ we are all indwelled by the Holy Spirit and if we tap into that power, that’s how we interpret scripture…. The whole goal of reading scripture is to become Christ-like… God loves the sinner but he hates the sinner, and the only way we can get that sin off of us is to accept Jesus.”

Metts ended his tirade with more than a tinge of paranoia. “Up in Canada, with the hate speech, if I read scripture against homosexuals, I could end up in jail. So now everything came out the closet, and they’re trying to put the Christians in the closet. I’m not going in the closet for no one.”

Twice during the long night of testimony Metts attempted to make a comment in response to a witness, and then shut down the witnesses’ ability to respond. The first time came when he was speaking to Jen Saarinen, the High School teacher concerned with LGBTQ bullying, and the second time was to John Reilly, an Evangelical who apologized for the behavior of some of the Christians opposed to Marriage Equality. The video shows Metts angrily and unsuccessfully trying to get Committee Chair Michael McCaffrey to stop Reilly from talking back to him. These assertions of Senatorial privilege, even though in both cases Metts was unable to silence the witnesses, is unfortunate in a country and state that values freedom of expression.

John Reilly was far from the only person to counter the views of Metts in his testimony. Rabbi Barry Dolinger, the youngest Rabbi in the Rhode Island, representing an Orthodox Judaism that firmly rejects homosexual marriage, nonetheless believes that marriage equality is a secular issue. Just as he does not want laws passed that would restrict his ability to practice his faith the way he sees fit, so does he also understand the necessity of allowing people of other faiths (and no faith) to practice (or not practice) as they see fit.

Rabbi Dolinger strongly supports marriage equality, taking a brave stance for true religious liberty and liberty of conscience, one that Senator Metts and other conservative Christian leaders (including Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Catholic Diocese) should take note of.

Dolinger pointed out that his people have been the historical victims of religious persecution for centuries, culminating in the holocaust, but he also pointed out what many might see as lesser slights against his people. Dolinger explained that his parents were forced to pray Christian prayers when they went to public schools. These would be the same sort of Christian prayer that Senator Lombardi fought so hard for when he was on the Cranston School Committee and Senator Metts laments the removal of.

Rabbi Dolinger rebuked Metts directly with the following passage from his testimony:

“I don’t want to believe anything that anyone wants me to believe. If I did that I’d have to be a Catholic in the State of Rhode Island and have to do all sorts of other things but I’m not! I don’t believe in Jesus, and I’m not gonna. And I don’t want anybody telling me I’m going to do that, so I’m not going to tell anyone else that because I wouldn’t marry them that they can’t get married.”

Rabbi Dolinger closed his powerful and compelling testimony by reading from George Washington’s letter to the Touro Synagogue. Washington, in describing not only the United States but also Rhode Island’s key place within the Union said that our government “to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance- but generously afford(s) to all Liberty of conscience and immunities of Citizenship.”

Many took Senator Metts and other Christian and Catholic fundamentalists to task for their intransigence on the issue, including Reverend Gene Dyszlewski, Reverend Duane Clinker, Rabbi Amy Levin, Rabbi Peter Stein and more. The clerics offered a mix of religious and secular arguments, and presented a welcome counterpoint to the intolerant drumbeat of Senator Metts, Pastors like Jay Stirnemann who stunned the crowd when he told Senator Stephen Archambault, “You don’t know God, sir!” and the omnipresent Father Healey, lobbyist for the Providence Catholic Diocese.

The downside of this kind of debate within the chambers of the State House is gives the false impression that the State House is the place for this kind of debate.

It is not.

Certainly it is difficult for people to leave their deeply held religious convictions at the door when entering into government service, but if, as Frank Lombardi maintained, you cannot “defrock yourself” of these beliefs or as Metts later claimed, “I don’t know if I can separate myself from my religion. I cannot cut myself in half” then perhaps government service is beyond the abilities of some people.

At one point in the long night of testimony Senator (or should I call him Deacon?) Metts quoted Jesus as having said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s” to which conservative Pastor Jay Stirnemann said, “I pay my taxes.”

Isn’t it amazing that Jesus, who spoke in parables that are interpreted and reinterpreted and used to justify any manner of beliefs, in this one case was speaking quite clearly only on tax law? Is it not possible that Jesus was explaining that there is a natural separation between Caesar (government) and God (religion)?

Even Rabbi Dolinger gets this, and he’s never gonna believe in Jesus.

February 18, 2012February 23, 2012

High Stakes Testing: Not So Hot

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

Last week friend of the blog, Dan McGowan at GoLocal, asked:

Everyone agree that “teaching to the test” is a bad idea, but it makes no sense to get rid of standardized tests that could determine whether a student is eligible to graduate… Why not continue to test, but also offer the right interventions that will help struggling students turn things around?

I’m not sure I’ve ever been more at odds with one of Dan’s posts. What’s got Dan upset is a proposal being offered by “not so hot” ~~State Senators~~ Representative Eileen Naughton and State Senator Harold Metts.

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Eileen Naughton and Sen. Harold Metts, would prevent the use of statewide standardized test assessments as a barrier to graduation. Civil rights and advocacy groups have long been critical of the use of “high stakes testing,” releasing statistics last year – and which have not improved since – that documented that approximately 90% or more of students classified as special education, limited English proficient, economically disadvantaged, Latino or African-American would receive either no diploma or one designating them only as “partially proficient” if high stakes testing had been in effect for the Class of 2011. [my emphasis]

So why not continue to test as McGowan proposes? Won’t that help those kids? There are actually plenty of reasons, many perhaps more evident to someone like me, a parent of dyslexic children. What I ask is, why should my child’s entire academic performance be judged by a single standardized test? At best it’s unfair and inaccurate, and at worst for kids like mine these high-stakes tests can be a form of discrimination. Dyslexics are often granted accommodations like additional time or quiet rooms, but even with these it’s hard to see how a dyslexic child’s academic potential could be accurately gauged.

One of my favorite writers on the subject of education reform is Alfie Kohn, who specifically warns against proposals to link standardized testing to graduation:

Virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion, on the results of a single test. The National Research Council takes this position, as do most other professional groups (such as the American Educational Research Association and the American Psychological Association), the generally pro-testing American Federation of Teachers, and even the companies that manufacture and sell the exams. Yet just such high-stakes testing is currently taking place, or scheduled to be introduced soon, in more than half the states.

It’s small wonder the idea lacks support among professionals: it’s wrong on motivation and wrong on process improvement as noted by process improvement guru W. Edwards Deming, who should be required reading for those still captivated by the “hotness” of the current testing fad.

These forces [of destruction] cause humiliation, fear, self-defense, competition for gold star, high grade, high rating on the job. They lead anyone to play to win, not for fun. They crush out joy in learning, joy on the job, innovation. Extrinsic motivation (complete resignation to external pressures) gradually replaces intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, dignity.

It’s certainly not what I want for my own children, and more over, using these tests as graduation requirements very likely harms the students we’re supposedly trying to help the most, kids like those in my neighborhood which is represented by Senator Metts (District 6, Providence). Here’s Kohn again:

Minority and low-income students are disproportionately affected by the incessant pressure on teachers to raise scores. But when high stakes are applied to the students themselves, there is little doubt about who is most likely to be denied diplomas as a consequence of failing an exit exam—or who will simply give up and drop out in anticipation of such an outcome. If states persist in making a student’s fate rest on a single test, the likely result over the next few years will be nothing short of catastrophic. Unless we act to stop this, we will be facing a scenario that might be described without exaggeration as an educational ethnic cleansing.

Let’s be charitable and assume that the ethnic aspect of this perfectly predictable consequence is unintentional. Still, it is hard to deny that high-stakes testing, even when the tests aren’t norm-referenced, is ultimately about sorting. Someone unfamiliar with the relevant psychological research (and with reality) might insist that raising the bar will “motivate” more students to succeed. But perform the following thought experiment: Imagine that almost all the students in a given state met the standards and passed the tests. What would be the reaction from most politicians, businesspeople, and pundits? Would they now concede that our public schools are terrific—or would they take this result as prima facie evidence that the standards were too low and the tests were too easy? As Deborah Meier and others have observed, the phrase “high standards” by definition means standards that everyone won’t be able to meet.

The tests are just the means by which this game is played. It is a game that a lot of kids—predominantly kids of color—simply cannot win. Invoking these very kids to justify a top-down, heavy-handed, corporate-style, test-driven version of school reform requires a stunning degree of audacity. To take the cause of equity seriously is to work for the elimination of tracking, for more equitable funding, and for the universal implementation of more sophisticated approaches to pedagogy (as opposed to heavily scripted direct-instruction programs). But standardized testing, while bad news across the board, is especially hurtful to students who need our help the most.

An audacious plan? Yes. But hot? Not so much, Dan.

January 19, 2012May 31, 2016

Rep. Lima to Introduce Voter ID Repeal Legislation

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

Watch for Rep. Charlene Lima to introduce legislation today to repeal the Voter ID bill that passed last session and was signed by Governor Chafee. She has been circulating the legislation in the House and has about 15 co-sponsors. It will likely be coming today in tandem with her press statement which was not completed yesterday.

While I’m a big fan of clean elections, I do not support Voter ID because it doesn’t actually fix any of the problems that its advocates seemingly imagine are rampant. Clearly, Voter ID will prevent the impersonation of another individual at a polling station. I will not be able to cast a ballot in South Providence this year claiming to be Sen. Harold Metts, and that is a good thing. But in a state that went to such great lengths to restore the vote of the formerly incarcerated, it is unfortunate that Rhode Island enacted this legislation to correct a problem that doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful way. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law puts it like this:

Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.

Voter ID merely takes a snapshot in time (quite literally) of individual voters and freezes it. Once the IDs are issued, there is no follow up to determine residence in future elections. Voter ID doesn’t prevent people from moving from one district to another and vote in the former district, or double voting, which are what I image fraudulent voting to be. However, the marginal benefit of voting in one district over another is exactly one vote, out of hundred, thousands, or tens of thousands (depending on the election), which is exactly why it so rarely happens. When was the last time an election was decided by a single vote? What Voter ID also ignores is election fraud, which is much more significant an issue, but does not involve voters at all. To quote Scott MacKay on this point:

In recent memory, Rhode Island political chicanery has not involved imposter voters. From Almeida to Zambarano, Cianci to Celona, Martineau to Maselli, it’s been the politicians, not the voters, who have been guilty of corruption.

Here are some clear examples of what Voter ID doesn’t do:

Case 1: I am a college student living in Providence and register to vote upon arrival. After my first year I move out of the dorms into another district, but continue to vote in my original district using my Student ID. Voter ID does not prevent this.
Case 2: I am a business owner living in Smithfield, but operating a business in Johnston. I use the utility bill for my business, addressed to me, as proof of my residence. I vote in Johnston, rather than Smithfield. Voter ID does not prevent this.
Case 3: I use a piece of mail delivered to my house, but addressed to the previous resident, as proof of my residence. I register to vote using this different name and vote twice using two different identities. Voter ID does not prevent this.
Case 4: Provisional ballots, which are valid once the signature on the ballot is verified as matching the signature on the original voter registration form, will be used for everyone who did not bring an ID to the polling booth. I forge my address on the voter registration form, never bring an ID to vote, and cast provisional ballots at every election in a district where I do not reside. Voter ID does not prevent this.
Case 5: There is another person named Brian Hull who lives in the same neighborhood in Providence (he was also born in the same year I was). He never registered to vote, but votes at our local precinct, before I do. My name gets crossed off as having voted when I did not actually vote. When I appear at the polling place, I am unable to vote because the other Brian Hull already voted. Voter ID does not prevent this.
Case 6: There are about 1,400 registered voters on Block Island, a community which has a voting age population of just 825? Voter ID does not prevent this.

To its credit, the Secretary of State’s office understands the legitimate concerns voters have regarding the use of photo IDs to cast a ballots and it began issuing free Voter ID cards earlier this month, albeit during working hours of 8:30-4:30, Monday through Friday (I suppose if you are lucky enough to have a job, good luck getting a Voter ID if you need one). For the period of time between January 3rd (when the Secretary of State first began issuing IDs) and close of business on January 18th, a total of 17 IDs were created and will be mailed out soon. To increase the issuance rate, Mollis’ office will be going to Senior Centers and community groups to provide Voter IDs (you just have to contact the Secretary of State’s office to arrange this). While this will be helpful, it does not actually address the problems likely to be caused by implementation of Voter ID: transient, homeless, elderly, and other population groups that already suffer from underrepresentation will be denied the right to cast a non-provisional ballot when they go to vote for lack of the proper Voter ID.

Here is the press release from Rep. Lima:

Representative Lima announced today that she plans to introduce legislation that will repeal the ill-advised and unneeded Voter ID legislation signed into law last year.

Calling it nothing more than “Jim Crow” disguised as election reform, Representative Lima said that the only reason that the Voter ID bill passed was complacency. No-one believed Rhode Island founded by Roger Williams with a history as a sanctuary for individual rights, free thinkers and religious tolerance since the 17^th century would pass such a backward leaning and anti-democratic piece of legislation whose only purpose is to rob our senior citizens, our economically disadvantaged and our growing minority population of their equality at the voting booth under the guise of make- believe voting fraud. The proponents of voting equality were caught off guard and the bill passed.

In 1841 Thomas Dorr led a People’s Convention in RI to give suffrage to many landless and voteless working citizens. Rhode Island voters overwhelmingly supported the voting reforms and on May 19, 1842 in Providence Thomas Dorr and his militia led an unsuccessful attack against the opponents of voting reform and then fled to Chepachet where they hoped to reconvene the People’s Convention. Later Dorr was imprisoned and spent several years in prison before being pardoned in 1845.

However because of the Dorr War and the People’s Convention the Rhode Island Legislature passed some of the most meaningful voting reforms ever seen in November of 1842.

By contrast in 2011 the Rhode Island Legislature took a giant and shameful leap backward in voting equality that surely caused Roger Williams and Thomas Dorr to turn over in their graves by the passage of the Voter ID law of 2011.

Twenty States in 2011 considered legislation that would have required voter ID and to the astonishment of the nation Rhode Island with its Democratic-controlled legislature and proud history of believing in the principles of the freedom and individual rights was the ONLY state with a Democratic controlled legislature to have passed a voter ID law.

Representative Lima said that the Voter ID law is anti-democratic and robs the elderly, the low income, the minorities and our of age students of their constitutional right against impediments that make their voting right more difficult to exercise.

Additionally the voter ID law will cost the State between $1.6 and $4.9 million dollars to implement properly and effectively, according to a recent study released by the Democratic National Committee and referenced in the Projo on July 6, 2011.

Representaticve Lima said, “the main reason for this law can be summed up in two words, “voter fraud”. The only thing fraudulent about voting in Rhode Island is the proponents of Voter ID claims that voter fraud is rampant in Rhode Island. Voter fraud in Rhode Island is nothing more than a manufactured crisis to justify the passing of the voting rights killing ID law. The only thing rampant in Rhode Island is the new migration of the Jim Crows.

It is with some degree of hope that I see so many groups and elected officials rushing to voice their opposition to the voter ID law. Over twenty Representatives have co-sponsored my bill so far.

Also voicing opposition are groups such as the ACLU, NAACP, Univocal Legislative Minority, Progresso Latino, RI coalition of the homeless, the Providence Youth Student movement, COMMON CAUSE, Direct Action for Rights and Equality and the RI Disability Law Project. Our full Congressional delegation has also voiced their opposition to the Voter ID law. With their support for the passage of my legislation and the repeal of Rhode Island’s voting equality bashing ID law I think we can undo the damage done to Rhode Island’s reputation as a protector of individual rights and freedoms. I will be looking for their full and public support because we must work together is we are to effectuate real change to this bad law. I look forward to their help and support.

I will be sending this release to all the groups above as well as to our full delegation in Washington seeking their public input.