“The American people want and deserve accountability in their elections,” said Whitehouse, “Unchecked secret corporate spending has tipped the scales of power away from ordinary Americans and in favor of big special interests. If Congress is going to make meaningful progress in the months and years ahead on important issues that matter to Rhode Islanders like addressing climate change, reforming our broken campaign finance system is the first step.”

Whitehouse’s DISCLOSE Act, which has been supported by Langevin and Cicilline in the U.S. House of Representatives, is part of the “We the People” legislative package to deal with secret corporate political spending, lobbyist influence, the revolving door, and other facets of the campaign finance system. Whitehouse touted the suite of legislation as a solution to the corporate spending blocking meaningful legislative action on issues like ensuring economic security for the middle class and addressing climate change.

It seems that Whitehouse mentioned climate change and chose Save the Bay’s headquarters in Providence as the location of his round table discussion because, as the Senator said in response to Meghan Kallman, chair of the RI Sierra Club, “I think it’s pretty safe to say, that at a national level, the climate battle is the campaign finance battle. They’re totally married together into one thing.”

Notably, there were protesters outside Save the Bay holding signs reminding their elected representatives about both Invenergy’s proposed $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant and National Grid’s proposed LNG liquefaction facility for Fields Point in the Port of Providence, a stone’s throw away. They were there to remind elected officials that their jobs in Washington do not absolve them from taking positions on local issues. None of the elected leaders in the room, aside from State Senator Juan Pichardo, who has publicly taken a stand against the LNG plant in Providence, have thrown their considerable political weight behind the opposition to these projects.

“This is a national package, [but] many many many issues are local,” said Kallman, “We’re watching Dakota. We’re watching Burrillville. We’re watching Fields Point… We have something of a disconnect between what’s happening on the national level and where the front line battles are being fought.”

The influence of corporate spending on elections since the 2010 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court is a major concern to all who attended the event. Citizens United unleashed a previously restricted torrent of special interest money into the political system.  More than $1.5 billion in unlimited contributions, including more than $500 million in secret contributions, have been poured into federal elections since the decision was issued.

“It didn’t take long after Citizens United for secret money has find its way to the shores of Rhode Island,” said John Marion, Executive Director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “We know that Rhode Islanders don’t want unlimited undisclosed money in our elections. We are fortunate to have a congressional delegation that has taken this issue seriously and has offered real solutions for the problems posed by big money in our politics.”

“Senator Whitehouse is a national leader fighting to make our elections and government work for everyday people again through the We the People Act,” said Aquene Freechild, campaign co-director of Public Citizen‘s Democracy Is For People Campaign. “He’s pushing the current congressional majority to snap out of their campaign cash-induced paralysis and stand up to the tiny but influential donor class: by overturning Citizens United, disclosing all spending in elections, and slamming shut the revolving door that transforms public servants into corporate shills.”

Also in attendance at the roundtable discussion were RI Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, RI State Representative Art Handy, state director of Clean Water Action Jonathan Berard, Save the Bay’s Topher Hamblett and Dean Michael J. Yelnosky of the Roger Williams University School of Law. You can watch the rest of the video from the event below.

“Good afternoon,” said a male voice on his voicemail. “I’m a representative of Senator Walaska. We’re looking for some support this election if you go out and vote in the primary we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.”

After hearing the call, and believing the use of state phones for partisan campaign calls to be against the law, the Warwick resident, who asked not to be identified, contacted the Attorney General‘s office. They told him that the AG’s office is only interested in issues of campaign fraud. He was referred to the Secretary of State‘s office. The Secretary of State’s office was similarly disinterested, and referred him to the Board of Elections. According to the resident who sent me the call, the person from the Board of Elections searched through the relevant statutes in vain before giving up and telling the resident that he should call back when he learned exactly what law is being broken.

For future reference, that law seems to be:

§ 36-4-52. Restrictions on political activities of classified employees

No classified employee shall during working hours engage to any extent in any form of partisan politics except that he or she may attend and vote at any party caucus, primary, or election held during working hours. Outside of working hours a classified employee may attend any partisan political rally, club, or gathering and privately express his or her partisan political views but any further partisan political activity on his or her part shall be engaged in only in accordance with the personnel rules. A classified employee violating the provisions of § § 36-4-50–36-4-54, or of the personnel rules shall for a first offense be either demoted or dismissed and for a second offense dismissed. All charges of these violations shall be publicly heard by the personnel appeal board.

Robert Kando executive director of the Board of Elections could not be reached for comment.

John Marion of Common Cause said that the issue appears reminiscent of an ethics complaint against Susan Cicilline Buonanno when she ran for the House District 33 seat that Narragansett Democrat Donald Lally resigned. Buonanno, principal of Gladstone Elementary School in Cranston was accused of using school email and phones to advance her political campaign.

This case is different because it’s not the candidate, but someone claiming to represent the candidate who appears to be using state resources for partisan political purposes.

“As you might expect, using state work telephones for campaigning is forbidden, and so we would want to know if this sort of thing was taking place so that the charges could be investigated and suitable disciplinary action taken if warranted,” said Fred Sneesby, an administrator at Children’s & Family Services. The Warwick resident who sent me the call has been put in contact with Sneesby.

Contacted by phone, Senator Walaska, after I identified myself but before I could fully explain what I was calling about, said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Jeanine Calkin, a progressive Democrat who is running against the 22-year incumbent, said that her husband, Daniel Calkin, received a similar call. A photo of her husband’s phone is on the left. Daniel Calkin, listening to the audio above, said he was “pretty sure it’s the same guy.”

“This looks like a very clear-cut violation,” said Sam Bell, executive director of the RI Progressive Democrats.”Campaign calls should not be made from state numbers. Being able to direct state workers to campaign for a candidate gives an enormously unfair advantage to powerful incumbents.”

Requests for comment from Representative Joseph McNamara and Brandon Bell, respective chairs for the Democratic and Republican parties in Rhode Island have gone unanswered.

As for the Warwick resident and doctor who sent me the call, he says that he is “disinclined to vote for Walaska.”

The General Assembly unanimously approved legislation to restore the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction over lawmakers. The joint resolution puts a constitutional amendment before voters at the November general election that, if approved, would close the legislative immunity loophole. Since it is a joint resolution, it does not require a signature by the governor to become effective.

In 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the state constitution’s “speech in debate clause” conferred legislative immunity upon General Assembly members. As a result, legislators stood outside the purview of the Ethics Commission. A constitutional amendment is necessary to restore the Ethics Commission’s oversight of the legislature.

“Since the Irons decision, Common Cause has dedicated itself to closing the ‘legislative immunity’ loophole,” said Common Cause Executive Director John Marion. “This is a historic moment for those who care about ethical government in Rhode Island. We have no doubt that this measure will increase transparency and accountability in our legislature. The work is not done, however, because voters still need to pass this constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.”

“Today’s vote is a dramatic, historic step forward,” said Phil West, who is the former executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. “The Speaker and Senate President’s ballot question will allow voters to establish the same ethics accountability for all public officials in Rhode Island. It will again allow legislators to think through potential conflicts of interest and to seek advisory opinions from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. No other state has anything better than this.”

The resolution adopted by the House and Senate did not include a campaign blackout period for filing complaints.

“We met with several groups and decided that the Constitution was an inappropriate place for a moratorium on filing complaints,” said Speaker Nicholas Mattiello. “I have confidence that the Ethics Commission will consider and determine the proper approach for dealing with frivolous, politically charged complaints.”

Personal note: It was an honor to sit in the House and Senate galleys with John Marion and Phil West as the resolutions passed.

“The public and the business community need to have trust in their government,” Speaker Mattiello said in a news release. “I believe giving the Ethics Commission jurisdiction over the General Assembly is a strong step forward for Rhode Island.”

Mattiello’s bill is a weaker version of the rules concerning Ethics Commission review of legislator conflicts of interest and other issues that the state Supreme Court effectively suspended seven years ago. It would suspend the oversight for five months before an election.

The state Supreme Court ruled seven years ago that legislators should not be held liable for actions that don’t violate the law, including conflicts of interest. The court used the “speech-in-debate” clause that had traditionally been used to shield lawmakers from civil suit.

North Kingstown state Senator Jim Sheehan, a Bernie Sanders supporter, has been leading a one-man crusade for ethics reform over the General Assembly this year. He took the somewhat unprecedented action of buying advertising on local media (including this site) to call attention to the matter.

“While far from perfect, the House amendment represents a reasonable compromise on the ethics reform issue,” Sheehan said. “Most critically, it finally closes the ‘legislators loophole,’ after a seven year hiatus, by restoring the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over the General Assembly. If approved and ratified by voters, I hope this measure will help rebuild the people’s trust in their elected state representatives and senators. In light of recent revelations of scandal at the State House, albeit overdue, this reform could not have come any sooner. After six year of working diligently on ethics reform, I am gratified to see a successful outcome to this issue.”

Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who joined Mattiello at a news conference yesterday, said, “I hope this is the final piece of the puzzle in terms of restoring confidence and trust in an institution which seeks to serve the people of the state of Rhode Island.”

Other state leaders called it one step in restoring Rhode Islanders’ faith in their government. “This legislation, along with my proposed lobby reform legislation, are historic steps toward restoring Rhode Islanders confidence in their government,” said Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea.

Said Governor Gina Raimondo, “Rhode Islanders deserve better – we need to embrace broad and deep reforms. By restoring Ethics Commission oversight, adopting a line-item veto, and re-examining grant programs, we can send a strong signal that we are committed to making Rhode Island a good place to do business.”

John Marion, executive director of Common Cause RI, who has long championed returning Ethics Commission oversight of the General Assembly said he supports the bill with some qualifications.

“Common Cause is supportive of the Speaker’s proposal to restore the full jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission over members of the General Assembly,” he said. “Our support is qualified on our need to examine the proposal further given that it was only made public today. Additionally, we believe that the moratorium on ethics complaints before an election belongs in law, not in the constitution. It has been seven years since a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision created this loophole in ethics oversight. It’s high time the voters be given a chance to close it by amending our constitution this November.”

Legislative leaders changed their minds on addressing legislators’ immunity from oversight by the Ethics Commission after former House Finance Committee Chairman Ray Gallison resigned amid a law enforcement probe last week. It’s unclear why the FBI and state police are investigating Gallison, but media reports since his resignation have shined a light on a non-profit that he works for. It received significant state funding and board members had little idea of the organization’s work and even their roles, which surprised some listed as board members.

“It is unfortunate, but true, that scandals help advance necessary reforms,” Marion told the Providence Journal.

Bills S999 and H6312, sponsored by Senator Cynthia Coyne (District 32) and Representative Kathleen Fogarty (District 35), gives the Secretary of State the power to purchase new voting equipment, a duty that was formerly carried out by the Board of Elections.

“Back in 1997, when the last purchasing bill was done, it was set up so that it would revert over to the Board of Elections,” Secretary Gorbea explained. “So, for the last 17 years that’s where it had rested, and the legislature, in this past session, saw fit to turn that around. Now, of course, the Board of Elections is an instrumental part of this, and is working with us on this process.”

She added that voting equipment is part of a democracy’s infrastructure, and that citizens in a democracy depend on that equipment to “deliver fair, fast, and accurate elections.”

Gorbea has ordered the creation of a Voting Equipment Task Force, to inform the Department of State’s process of researching and buying new equipment, which has not been updated since 1997. John Marion, the executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, is a member of the task force, said the Board of Elections was not moving into the 21^st century fast enough when it came to voting infrastructure, so the new legislation is a good way to move forward, even though it may be less transparent.

“The Board of Elections process could have been more transparent, because in the end the Board would have to vote in a public session on the purchase of the new machines, and now the Secretary can make the decision. The Secretary is not a board that has to have a public session,” he said. “But, fortunately, the Secretary convened a task force, to give input, and it’s a very expansive task force that brings in a lot of different people in the community. So, I think she is being as transparent as she can be, given the circumstances.”

Marion also said that the task force will be looking at what other states have done to influence how they will go about acquiring new equipment. Common Cause as a whole, he said, is also interested in making voting more accessible to Rhode Islanders. Senator Coyne shared that sentiment.

“The signing of this legislation is crucial to not only ensuring our elections are fair and accurate, but also to bringing the state’s voting machines into the 21^st century,” she said. “In addition, modern equipment will make the voting process easier for Rhode Islanders, which will hopefully result in more people becoming involved in the democratic process.”

Governor Raimondo added that the main goal is to ensure that government works for everybody.

“This is a bill that I supported. I think the Secretary of State will do a good job. It will be efficient, and as I mentioned in my comments, really performance based. We want to make government effective and efficient, and the best use of tax dollars, and I think this does that,” she said.

An interesting side note about this bill that was mentioned at the signing is the fact that all the main stakeholders in its passage are women. Representative Fogarty, of South Kingstown, said that this proves that women create good legislation, which leads to good government.

“It was not something that was planned,” Gorbea said on the subject. “It was just something that happened organically, and I was pleased to see it happen.”

When Governor Gina Raimondo signed the budget on Tuesday, she officially signed into law language that stands as the most extreme anti-abortion language passed in Rhode Island in two decades. And because it was slipped into the budget as part of the language that codifies HealthSource RI, the state’s highly successful Obamacare insurance exchange, and not submitted as a bill, this new law was passed with no legislative debate and no chance for any input from the public.

Shockingly, this end run around democracy and against reproductive rights came from Rhode Island’s first woman governor, Gina Raimondo, who sailed to victory with the endorsement of Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood, and with the help of a putatively Democratic majority legislature.

How did this happen?

In Rhode Island, support for the right to abortion polls at 71 percent, surprisingly high for a state that hosts by percentage the greatest number of Catholics in the country. Former Governor Lincoln Chafee, a stalwart defender of reproductive rights, vetoed a “Choose Life” license plate bill, a bill that would have split the money for the vanity plate between the state and right wing Christian “abortion counseling” centers that offer false hope to women dealing with crisis pregnancies. Rhode Island stands as one of the few states to have defeated these license plates.

Simply put, in Rhode Island, reproductive rights are only controversial among a small group of right wing activists, fronted by the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, who use the issue to advance their narrow political objectives.

It was this small group of activists that helped concoct two lawsuits, with the help of the right wing religious advocacy group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Doe v Burwell  and Howe v Burwell were brought against HealthSource RI because there no plans offered on the state’s health exchange that did not cover abortion.

Doe, who chose to remain anonymous because of his HIV+ status, claimed that he was unable, due to his religious beliefs, to contribute money to any health plan that covered abortion, and that his needs as an HIV+ man meant that waiting until 2017 for the one plan that does not cover abortion mandated under Federal law was not practical. In addition to his health concerns, Doe claimed he was liable for fines fines levied against him for not selecting one of the plans currently available on the exchange.

The government’s reaction to the Doe lawsuit was swift: They completely caved. The state agreed to dismiss Doe’s fines, enroll him into a special plan that satisfied his moral objections to abortion, and require that the Rhode Island Office of Health Insurance Commissioner issue a mandate that there be a plan offered on the state’s health exchange that did not cover abortion at every tier of coverage.

In return, the ADF withdrew their lawsuit. Ten days later, on May 29, Governor Raimondo added the agreed upon language to her proposed budget as an amendment.

Under federal law, at least one plan that did not cover abortion had to be made available on all state exchanges by 2017. The settlement the state agreed to went far beyond that mandate.

In Rhode Island, adding new language through the budget process means that there will be no opportunity for public comment or meaningful public debate. The budget is submitted by the governor and re-crafted by the RI House of Representatives in a process that is conducted mostly behind the scenes. John Marion, executive director of Common Cause RI, a government accountability group, has called it “transactional politics.” When the budget comes to the House floor for a vote, specific parts can be debated by legislators, and amendments can be added, but the public gets no chance to directly comment.

The language Raimondo added is problematic for businesses. James Rhodes, director of public policy & government relations at Planned Parenthood Southern New England, asked, “How does a small employer, whether a religious organization or not, claim a religious exemption from covering abortion? Do they have a form to fill out to submit to the Office of Health Insurance Commissioner to declare their objection in order to get a new plan variation from an insurer? Is there any requirement to notify insured employees that their insurance does not cover this service, which is standard coverage in the small group market?”

The new language provided no process by which employers declared their objections and no process by which employees were to be notified of their employers decisions. This is important because a woman might think her health plan covers abortion, only to find out that her employer has decided, on personal religious grounds, not to cover the procedure without informing the employees.

“It is worth emphasizing that the federal health care law already imposes significant restrictions on abortion access through health care exchanges,” Steve Brown, executive director of the RI ACLU. “The additional burdens that passage of this budget article could impose, particularly on unwitting employees, is deeply troubling.”

As I tweeted at the time, “Gina Raimondo’s budget addition may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom across Rhode Island.”

Immediately after Raimondo’s amendment was submitted, rumors began to swirl that the language was inserted as some sort of backroom deal to save HealthSource RI at the expense of women’s reproductive rights. Indeed, Speaker of the House and right wing Democrat Nicholas Mattiello had been vocal about his desire to turn the state health exchange over to the federal government.

Language that limited women’s access to abortion was rumored to be the price paid for keeping control of the health exchange in Rhode Island. However, it has been impossible to source this rumor. Rather than being concerned with limiting women’s abortion access, Mattiello’s public statements were all about the high cost of administering the health exchange on the state level.

For instance, Mattiello said that, “he would not have signed on [to including HealthSource RI in the budget] unless HealthSource administrators had significantly reduced their cost projections to the point where the surcharge could be “at or below” the level it would be if the state handed the exchange over to the federal government…”

On the House floor, during the strangely curtailed debate on the budget, an amendment was approved that somewhat mitigated the damage done by Raimondo’s abortion language. This new language, crafted with the help of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, required any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their employee health plan, to allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and select any other plan, paying any additional costs.

This makes Rhode Island the first state to build language into its state exchange that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion coverage. A minor victory, considering that this imposes additional health care costs on women. If an employer elects not to cover abortion in their health plans, women pay additional fees out of pocket.

Additionally, women may find themselves in a difficult spot when it comes to dealing with employers who choose not to cover abortion. Opting out of the employer’s health plan may serve as a signal to employers that the employee is pro-choice. This may have an effect on a woman’s ability to secure raises, promotions or other workplace benefits if an employer chooses to act on this assumption in a biased or bigoted manner.

The Planned Parenthood amendment was supported by an unlikely coalition of legislators, including long time pro-choice Representative Edie Ajello and long time abortion and LGBTQ rights foe Representative Arthur Corvese. But behind the scenes, no one was happy with the compromise. A source confided to me that Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life, Providence Catholic Diocese lobbyist Bernard Healey and conservative Democratic Representative John DeSimone, were railing against the compromise language during last minute backroom negotiations.

The amended amendment passed and the entire budget passed unanimously and in record time.

After the budget passed the House, both sides declared victory.

Bracy explained in a newsletter that the “victory” was “the fruit of six years of intense legislative, political, and legal battle.” (Bracy did not explain how the seeds of this victory were planted a year before Obamacare became law.) Bracy further explained, or rather, did not explain, that, “Due to the complexity of Obamacare, and its implementation in Rhode Island, neither the media nor our opponents at Planned Parenthood and in the pro-abortion caucus of the General Assembly, yet appear to understand the extent of our victory.”

Bracy promises to explain the completeness of his victory after the Governor signs the budget.

Meanwhile, James Rhodes of Planned Parenthood claimed partial victory, dinging Raimondo for choosing “to widely expand the number of plans that do not cover abortion beyond federal minimum standards” while doing “nothing to protect abortion access for employees of small businesses in Rhode Island.”

Rhodes went on to say, “In the wake of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision, we were surprised the Governor did not seek protections for employee access to comprehensive reproductive health care. It is clear that leaders in the House and Senate recognized this budget loophole. The passed budget includes an invaluable amendment that will allow employees of small businesses that claim an objection to covering abortion, to enroll in the HealthSource RI Full Employee Choice program.”

In the end, the right of some women to access reproductive health care has been eroded in favor of the fake right of employers to not provide such healthcare on religious grounds. For her part, the Governor’s office has refused repeated requests for clarification.

Given the transactional and punitive nature of RI politics, no one in the legislature seems willing to go on record about this debacle.

This new assault on women’s rights is the spawn of the odious SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, based on the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA), writ small a thousand times. I’ve argued before that it’s past time to repeal or at least seriously amend Rhode Island’s RFRA, and just recently the ACLU seems to have reached the same conclusion.

Meanwhile, those who supported Gina Raimondo’s bid for Governor of Rhode Island might want to seriously reconsider their support. She has revealed herself as no champion of reproductive rights.

“I don’t want everyone to vote that’s not well informed on the issues,” said House Minority Whip Joseph Trillo (R- District 24). “So I don’t want to register everybody just because I want bodies to go into a voting booth and vote. You Democrats don’t care about that! You’ll take them by the thousands! As long as they can breathe, walk, take them into the voting booth!”

“An uninformed voter is a manipulated voter,” he added.

Trillo’s concern, as did many others, stemmed from possible voter fraud using an electronic system. The legislation would operate using one’s existing driver’s license or state identification card, which already has their signature on it. Those eligible would be able to register because their signature would already be on file at the DMV, making it easier for them to be verified by the Secretary of State. Their local board of canvassers would then notify them that their registration has been confirmed.

Language in the bill that states that the Secretary of State’s office “may” verify a registrant sparked the debate. Many opponents believed that the Secretary’s office should be required to verify everyone who registers to vote, but those who supported the bill stated that not only is it an undue burden on administration, it is unnecessary because of the cross-referencing done by the board of canvassers. Representative Stephen Ucci (D- District 42), stated that the verification is normally only used to analyze voter trends that may be suspicious.

“You have to look into this in the totality of our voting system,” Ucci said. “Let’s join those other 20 something states that have done this, and get ourselves on the right path to getting people to vote.”

“A person is still required to have a state license or state ID, which you don’t need in person,” Representative Aaron Regunberg (D- District 4), who is the main sponsor of the bill, added. “The system has existed in dozens of states, registering millions of voters, and there has not been a recorded successful incident of fraud.”

Other key points in the debate included accessibility to registration, as well as modernizing Rhode Island’s system. Many spoke about how there are people who do not have the time to go to their town or city hall to register, because they are working during office hours. Going online to vote, rather than paying for an envelope and stamp to mail in registration, is free, making the process more accessible to low-income voters. Putting the process online and making it easier would, in their eyes, serve as an incentive to both register and vote.

Regunberg’s legislation also includes a provision that would enroll Rhode Island in agreements with other states that would allow them to reference data in order to update voter rolls, either registering people who have recently moved into the state, or expunging those who have moved or died.

The bill passed with overwhelming support, in a 63-10 vote. In an interview after the meeting, Regunberg said he was very excited that the legislation passed, especially because it will be one of many solutions to get people out and voting.

“There’s a whole bunch of things, I think this is one part of it that will absolutely, for a generation of people who are much more used to doing these things online, who don’t really use snail mail, who don’t really understand those more antiquated systems. I think it will make it more accessible. It makes it more convenient for everyone,” he said.

Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, who helped to craft the bill, provided a statement about its passage as well:

“This legislation will make it easier for citizens to register to vote and update their voter information, and it will improve the accuracy and integrity of Rhode Island’s voter rolls. I thank Speaker Mattiello, the bill’s sponsors, Representatives Regunberg, Handy, Keable, Blazejewski, and Barros; and the entire House of Representatives for their support of this legislation.”

John Marion, the Executive Director of Common Cause RI, was also involved in the bill’s drafting process, and stated that this is a huge step forward for Rhode Island, not only in terms of modernization, but also in terms of system management, and accessibility. As far as systems management is concerned, the electronic process makes everyone’s jobs easier and more cost effective. In some states, the cost per voter has gone down to less than ten cents per registration. But to Marion, those benefits are only secondary.

“The real benefit is to the voters. This is going to allow people easier access to registration, and not just new registrants, but this has a lot to do with people who are moving and don’t want to change their registration,” he said. “Because this is not replacing the current paper based system, it’s a complement to that, it’s going to capture more people, ultimately.”

Much like its House counterpart, the Senate Finance Committee passed the FY16 budget bill unanimously with almost no discussion other than to speak on its merits.

“I would certainly characterize this budget as one that is not only ambitious, but one that makes a significant investment in areas that should have been invested in in the past,” Chairman Daniel DaPonte (D- District 14) said to begin the meeting. He added in a press release that the budget helps to put Rhode Island back on the right track economically.

“This is a budget that Rhode Island’s economy needs and through its passage will continue the economic stability and reform that delivers the message that Rhode Island’s economy is back and open for business.”

One of the short discussion points brought up during the meeting was whether or not the budget provided opportunities for youth.

“There have been some pockets that have been filled here, but I suggest that next year we consider providing more job opportunities for youth,” Senator Juan Pichardo (D- District 2) said.

DaPonte agreed with Pichardo, but also reminded the committee that there is no one specific way to keep youth working in the state.

“I think initiatives to focus on keeping young people here and getting them up and running are incorporated in the budget in a variety of different places and a variety of different ways,” he said. “I think the sum of all these parts is a statement to us not only wanting to keep these folks here, but increase the number of opportunities available.”

The night before, the House of Representatives was very kind to the bill as well, passing it through to the Senate after a swift three-hour session. Before its passage, many took the time to thank not only House Finance Committee Chairman Raymond Gallison (D- District 69), and Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, but the House Fiscal Advisory staff as well.

Other groups outside of the State House are also pleased with the budget. Planned Parenthood, which fought against the restrictive abortion insurance coverage in Article 18, said in a press release that they are pleased with the outcome of the bill.

“While we were disappointed the governor unnecessarily chose to widely expand the number of plans that do not cover abortion beyond federal minimum standards, the action by the General Assembly today ensures employers cannot unilaterally limit reproductive health care service coverage for their employers. This amendment will require employers and insurance carriers to clearly indicate when an employer is opting out of covering certain reproductive healthcare services, so that no one will be surprised by a lack of coverage for routine procedures.”

But, while many have championed the budget as a success story, there are still those that are dissatisfied. Common Cause Rhode Island, an advocacy and lobbyist group for transparent government, has expressed discontent with the budget’s provision for Governor Raimondo’s pension settlement.

“This extraordinary legislation, that will affect every Rhode Islander – and every Rhode Island state and municipal budget – for decades, should not be rolled into the annual budget as if it were just another article,” said executive director John Marion. “The budget debate that typically occurs in a single evening and includes debates on amendments concerning dozens of issues is not the place for this important legislation. It deserves special consideration so legislators, as much as they did in the special session in 2011, can take this up on the merits alone.”

Marion went on to explain that provisional ballots, which may be cast by those without proper ID, are a different kind of ballot, and there is no guarantee  that such votes will be counted or any recourse for voters to take to ensure that they are counted.

Are we setting up a two-tiered voter system? One for those who have money and “proper” ID and a second one for the poor? It certainly smells like class warfare to me.

• Jim Vincent, NAACP, “strongly supports” voter ID repeal

Instead, Marion gave this terrific talk at the opening of a 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 that sought to provide needed information to the public about the possibility of a Constitutional Convention in the next few years.

What will a Constitutional Convention look like? What issues are likely to be taken up? What will an election of delegates look like and what will this all cost? Marion attempts to answer these and other questions by examining the history of the 1984-1986 Constitutional Convention held here in Rhode Island, which is also the last Constitutional Convention to be held anywhere in the United States.

This might just be the best introduction to this important subject available anywhere.