Protect your rights: reject question 3


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

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

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

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

Question 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

’86 Con Con delegate Roberto Gonzalez warns against Question 3


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

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

RobertoGonzalez2“Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the Constitution,” will ask Question 3 on Tuesday’s ballot. Citizens for Responsible Government (CFRG), a diverse coalition of organizations united to oppose Question 3, has been working diligently to spread the word why the answer should be no.

A Constitutional Convention, or a Con Con, would be dangerous for the citizens of Rhode Island, especially for minorities and women. Question 3 must be rejected!

On October 21, CFRG held a press conference featuring 3 former delegates from the 1986 Con Con. Former Senate Minority Leader, Lila Sapinsley, former Senator Thomas Izzo, and lawyer and former Housing Court judge, Roberto Gonzalez, Esq. warned against convening another Con Con. Mr. Gonzalez stated, “All the good government stuff went out the window. Just about all.”

Most people do not realize that this wasn’t the first time Mr. Gonzalez had spoken out against a Con Con.

This past August, the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Preparatory Commission held public hearings where testimony could be given for or against a Con Con. As campaign manager for CFRG, it was my duty to submit testimony for our coalition partners whenever they were unable to attend in person. A delegate to the 1986 Con Con and former Housing Judge, Roberto Gonzalez, Esq., provided me with a written statement which I read to the commission. His powerful experience as a delegate warns strongly against the convening of another Con Con. As we approach Tuesday’s election, I felt that it was necessary for me to share this testimony with the public.

 

August 19, 2014

Written Testimony of Roberto Gonzalez, Esq. to the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Commission

Greetings Honorable Members of the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Commission. My name is Roberto Gonzalez. I am a resident of the City of East Providence. I served as a delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention. I was just finishing law school at the time, and was full of idealism and had a burning desire to serve. I cannot begin to tell you how disillusioned I became with the 1986 Con-Con process and especially with the end result.

We elected a President to the Convention, Attorney Kevin McKenna, that had been hand-picked and strung out on puppet strings by the then Speaker of the House, Matt Smith. Nothing moved during the convention without Matt Smith’s authorization. He essentially controlled the entire process from beginning to end, including establishing the rules under which we operated.

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, and with no disrespect intended to the Constitutional Convention Bi-Partisan Commission members who are now part of the GA leadership teams, and who I am sure are working hard on this issue, I have to tell you that the 1986 convention was hijacked from the citizens of Rhode Island. While some delegates deliberated in good faith the outcome of the convention had been predetermined by the then powerful Speaker Smith, who were in turn controlled by the same special interests that control the House Leaders today. Many, if not most of the delegates, were family or friends of those in power. It was never a convention of the People to improve government, but rather a convention of special interests. I am sure that if the good citizens of this State choose to have another convention the exact thing will happen.

Instead of debating good government amendments, the convention will become bogged down with a plethora of polarizing social issues, such as: gun control, abortion, voter ID and immigration. There is nothing to stop the delegates from putting measures on the ballot that will reverse the recent gains by progressives, and good government groups.

After all is said and done the voters will ultimately defeat most of the proposed amendments, but only after several million tax-payer dollars are misappropriated from programs for education, housing, and infrastructure development. Are we not better off putting these funds to work for the People of our State?