Rhode Island Constitutional Convention

October 27, 2014October 28, 2014

Tobin, Stenhouse backpeddle on ‘thorny cultural issues’

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

Is Bishop Tobin now doing the same thing he accused Gina Raimondo of?

Bishop Tobin, despite a lengthy career of advocating against abortion and marriage equality, has said that in the event of a constitutional convention being held in Rhode Island, he didn’t “think it would or should deal with cultural/moral/religious issues. These particular, discrete issues are better dealt with in the normal legislative process.”

The Bishop’s statement stands in stark contrast to his earlier statements regarding marriage equality, which he said should be placed on the ballot for a popular vote, “We will continue to oppose efforts to redefine the institution of marriage in Rhode Island… The citizens of Rhode Island have a right to vote on this crucial issue.’’

One wonders if Bishop Tobin’s backing off on the issue of abortion, as pertains to a ConCon, represents “an inexcusable lack of moral courage” and an abandonment of “teaching of the Church on the dignity of human life for the sake of self-serving political gain” as he recently said of Gina Raimondo when she announced her position on abortion.

Why would Tobin, so dedicated to changing the laws regarding abortion (and marriage equality) give up a potentially powerful tool that might help him accomplish his task? Does Tobin intend to go so far as to oppose any potential resolutions passed by a ConCon that sought to deal with “cultural/moral/religious” issues in a way the church favors? Can you imagine the Bishop taking a stand against an amendment limiting reproductive of LGBTQ rights if one were to make it through the ConCon?

I can’t.

Meanwhile, Mike Stenhouse, of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a group devoted to crank economics, has pledged to not “support any amendment in a convention that would infringe on individual rights,” despite a line in the Center’s own report that said a ConCon could, “Resolve some thorny cultural issues – one way or another – through the mechanism that most clearly represents the will of the people.” (page six)

Stenhouse’s attack on Jim Vincent of the NAACP and Steve Brown of the ACLU for pointing out the actual words found in the Center’s report rings false. Stenhouse maintains that, “Any honest reading of this section clearly shows that the Center was not taking a position on those topics. Nor is the Center aware that any pro convention organization has publicly suggested that social or cultural issues should be a convention topic.”

So what does “resolve thorny cultural issues” mean to Stenhouse? It’s hard to know, but Stenhouse defender Justin Katz, in a piece entitled, If not on the Ballot, Where? attacks Vincent and defends the Center’s statement by saying, “Look, cultural issues have to be resolved.” In other words, thorny cultural issues are up for discussion in a ConCon, no matter what Stenhouse says.

Maybe the Center should get its messaging straight.

Whereas Tobin serves the Catholic God, Stenhouse serves the God of the Free Market, whose invisible hand makes the rich richer by picking the pockets of the poor. Stenhouse pledges not to support any amendments that might infringe on individual rights, but the term “individual rights” does not equate to civil rights or human rights. The term “individual rights” is much narrower than that.

Individual rights are not group rights. Individual rights are not environmental rights. Under this narrow conception of rights, corporations are individuals, unions are not. The concept of individual rights is often advanced as a way of avoiding the obligations our rights impose on us. Under this view, everybody is responsible for their own rights, not the rights of others.

Human rights, on the other hand, are understood to be “interrelated, interdependent and indivisible” and to apply to “individuals or groups.” Stenhouse and the center are cautious to avoid terms like human rights and civil rights because these terms carry a moral, ethical and historical weight that is bigger and more expansive than the narrow limits the narcissistic, Objectivist term “individual rights” allow for.

Human rights are both rights and obligations. When we talk in terms of human rights, we call on the power of states to enforce and enhance those rights. Stenhouse and the Center prefer a world of limited government that is unconcerned with human rights and is concerned only with the narrow limits of individual rights. Civil rights legislation that forces bigoted shopkeepers to serve hated minorities are not allowed under this formulation.

Finally, it’s easy for Bishop Tobin, Mike Stenhouse and the members of Renew RI to pinky swear that they will not go after what they call “thorny cultural issues” because they don’t control all the forces in and out of Rhode Island that may involve themselves in the process. Further, their promise to not involve themselves in such issues are limited and conditional.

So it all comes down to this: Do you trust them?

October 22, 2014

Former ConCon delegates agree: It doesn’t work

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

Delegates from the 1986 Constitutional Convention recalled their experiences and urged against convening another convention in 2016 from the steps of Garrahy Judicial Complex where several ConCon meetings were held in the 1980s. The three speakers were united in their opinion that the ConCon is not the tool for tackling issues of governmental reform, and in fact does pose a threat to civil liberties. Further, a new ConCon will almost certainly be captured by special interests, in much the same way the last one was.

Lila Sapinsley, former delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention and former Senate Republican Minority Leader, said:

“In 1986 when a Constitutional Convention was approved I eagerly ran for delegate. I naively thought that if delegates ran without party labels the convention would be free of politics. However, my hopes were dashed when I saw that since candidates ran from House districts, the convention was a mirror image of the House of Representatives. Delegates, if not directly connected to party leaders, were family or friends. The Speaker of the House controlled the convention. 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.”

East Providence resident Roberto Gonzalez, also a former delegate, stated:

“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 House Speaker, who was in turn controlled by the same special interests that have controlled House leaders in recent history. 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 or dilute the civil rights gains that have been so difficult to obtain.”

Tom Izzo, another former delegate, said:

“The process of electing delegates alone impacts the potential for a ‘purer, freer and more open deliberation’ – a process where, while non-partisan, does not allow for a real vetting of the candidates’ qualifications. In most instances–though not running–sitting representatives hold inordinate sway, and special interests can leverage their greatest influence. These special elections, as in most primaries, have a very low voter turnout, and candidates must depend on these special interests to get elected. While there were a few positive outcomes from the last convention, I do not believe the time, the financial cost, the potential negative impact on civil rights, and most importantly the virtually unlimited impact of special interests, especially in light of recent rulings regarding campaign spending, warrants or justifies the calling of another convention.”

There is no reason to think that a Constitutional Convention held today will be any different from the 1986 experience, and a number of reasons to think that the results of a new convention will be worse. Since 1986, the influence of money on politics has exploded. The present Speaker of the House is no less powerful than his 1986 predecessor, and is potentially more powerful. No changes have been made to the selection process of delegates that might prevent a convention from being hijacked again.

Promises from proponents that this Constitutional Convention will be different are meaningless. They have no more control over the proceedings and outcomes of a ConCon than I do. Across the country, no state has held a ConCon since the one held in Rhode Island in 1986, for all the reasons the former delegates outlined above.

Why should Rhode Island be the only state not to learn from its mistake?

November 1, 2013

Bicameralism: Why in RI?

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

The past few weeks have brought me to a couple of intriguing talks, which I’m just getting my head around now. First was one by the authors of Dollarocracy. The second was Common Cause RI’s Annual Meeting, which featured a keynote speech by Prof. Sanford Levinson about rethinking the U.S. Constitution. It had seemed timely during the shutdown, though during his speech the U.S. Congress began the process of voting to reopen the government. The heart of Levinson’s argument (as I remember it) was that if the most we interact with the U.S. Constitution is through interpretations of the Bill of Rights and a handful of the amendments, then we’re not really interacting with the document. After all, if the meaning of a comma and the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is The Great Constitutional Debate of the day, then we’re really debating a really tiny fraction of the document. We’re leaving so many of the provisions of the Constitution alone. “Like bicameralism!” Levinson exclaimed, more than once in his speech. He was really negative about bicameralism in state constitutions. Maybe it was just the repetition, but that stuck with me.

I’ve discussed the idea of a unicameral legislature before, and GoLocalProv’s Dan Lawlor has also suggested it’s not a terrible idea. And should a Rhode Islanders approve a state Constitutional Convention in 2014, I think it’s something we should really discuss. Let’s talk about how weird our bicameralism is.

Ostensibly, state bicameralism is based on the national bicameralism. A state Senate is supposed to mirror the U.S. Senate; its members represent a lower rung of government (states in the U.S. Senate, municipalities – originally – in the R.I. Senate) rather than a number of people. In Rhode Island, for a long time, that was how things were: there were an equal number of senators to towns and cities. In practice, this kept the Republican Party in power far longer than they should have been, and it wasn’t until the Bloodless Revolution in the 1930s that that changed. Similarly, a state House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people, and thus are tied to districts rather than government areas. Because it represents the People, the House is usually where a budget originates from.

In Rhode Island, this difference doesn’t exist any more. Rhode Island really just has two Houses of Representatives; the big one which produces the budget and the small one approves appointments. Other legislation It’s not a great system because it’s mostly redundant, but it’s not a totally broken system, because it’s more or less worked for a long time.

What if we applied the principles of bicameralism to other branches of government though? Like, what if instead of a single Governor we had two Co-Governors, each elected to four-year terms but elected in syncopated cycles. And what if, like the legislature, it took the signature of both Co-Governors to pass legislation? If both were from the same party, perhaps there would be negotiation and they’d pretty much agree. But if different parties each held a Co-Governorship… expect nothing to get done.

Or what if there were two state Supreme Courts? If you had to argue your case before one court, and then argue it again before the other court; and neither court needed to take into account the ruling of the the other. And only if both courts reach the same verdict could anything be done.

That seems ridiculous, but that’s exactly what happens with dozens of bills each year in the legislature. Advocates and legislators make their case before one chamber and then have to make the case again before the other chamber. If one key legislator, say a committee chair, has a problem with the bill… that bill dies. On the face of it, having to make the same argument twice is not necessarily a negative, yet it does make the General Assembly slower at dealing with things than it could be; requiring that each piece of legislation has a doppelganger also has the consequence that should one chamber request changes to a bill, then those changes have to be approved by the other chamber, the original bill withdrawn and a Sub A be submitted.

It also means that the two chambers can hold up legislation they don’t see eye-to-eye on as negotiating tools over one another. Within a single branch of our government, we can have a conflict that goes beyond the simple partisan or ideological divides. One that’s more about where power resides. This is not a productive conflict to have within government.

Reducing the legislature to one chamber would create a General Assembly that did not need to re-argue each piece of legislation it wished to pass. It would eliminate a nonsensical duplication of the legislative process. It would strike out a whole section of political conflict.

In today’s political reality though, this is impossible to do. First, Senate Democrats disproportionately benefit from incumbency as compared to their Republican peers. Second, the change is so radical that finding a way that doesn’t anger every senator is impossible. The most feasible strategy seems to be putting all politicians into one chamber with the next redistricting, so that 113 districts are drawn instead of 75. But too many politicians aspire to the leadership positions, and it would be impossible for politicians to be satisfied that their smaller districts were “safe” enough that they’d stand a good chance of regain their seats. It certainly would be impossible without other changes to how we do districting and elect our legislators.

Which is why a Constitutional Convention is the sole place it could happen. But even with that such an amendment would face two major hurdles to winning an affirmative vote from Rhode Islanders. First, it would be campaigned against vehemently. Second, it would require overcoming the “tradition” of bicameralism. Too many of our political institutions have become sacred totems. Bicameralism is one of those. As Lawlor points out, it only was defeated in Nebraska thanks to Great Depression politics, the idea that bicameralism led to corruption, and high voter turnout thanks to a vote on legalizing horse racing. A similar confluence of events seems unlikely to happen in the next few years.