RI Constitutional Convention

October 12, 2014October 14, 2014

What does GoLocal’s purported Con-Con poll really show?

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

GoLocal ran a story claiming that a Center for Freedom and Prosperity poll indicates that Rhode Islander’s strongly favor holding a Constitutional Convention. But the poll, as released, doesn’t show that at all. What the poll demonstrates is that 70% of likely Rhode Island voters think “things” are on the “wrong track” in the state, that 59% think the economy is the most important problem we are facing, that 77% believe that our political leadership deals with problems inadequately, and 79% believe that state government is more geared to “special interest groups.”

How is this news?

These results are hardly surprising given the state of the economy and government. Based on these poll results, Center CEO Mike Stenhouse urges voters to approve a Con-Con to address these issues, but the poll does not demonstrate that voters favor a con-con as a remedy. In fact, it seems that the results of the poll that might deal with a con-con, Q.8-Q.18, have been withheld from the public. You can view the poll here, and see plainly that the questions jump from Q.7 to Q.19.

In other words, the information released is only what the Center wants you to see, not a real picture of likely voter attitudes.

Some results from Q.16 were released by the Center. These are statements from participants on why they favor holding a Con-Con, but question 15, which perhaps asks participants if they favor a Con-Con, is not included. There are 96 statements in support of a Con-Con listed, out of 516 participants interviewed and weighted for this poll. If this is everyone in favor of a Con-Con, that’s less than 20% support. Even if this is only half of the support the poll found, we’re still left with less than 40% favoring a Con-Con.

Had the poll indicated a majority of likely Rhode Island voters were in favor of a Con-Con, the Center would certainly have included this in the poll results they released. In the absence of the full poll results, we can only assume that the Center did not get the results they were looking for, and that GoLocal made a huge mistake in mischaracterizing the results.

Based on the information released by the Center so far, it’s obvious that Rhode Island voters see the Con-Con for what it is, a chance for special interests like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to alter the Rhode Island State Constitution in favor of the corporate interests they front for.

October 9, 2014October 10, 2014

Are you against Grover Norquist? Then you should be against a ConCon

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

Grover Norquist’s visit to Rhode Island makes it obvious that outside forces are sharpening their knives in preparation for a chance to carve up Rhode Island’s Constitution into bite-sized chunks. Perhaps even small enough to drown in a bathtub?

The progressive coalition against such a fate, the Citizens for a Responsible Government, held a press conference outside the Squantum Association minutes before Grover Norquist gave his short pep talk to those in support of a Constitutional Convention at a fundraising luncheon. Coalition spokesperson Pablo Rodriguez was joined by Kate Brewster, head of the Economic Progress Institute and Michael Araujo, business agent for the International Association of Theatrical and Stage Employees, Local 23.

Together the three speakers made a compelling case for why the very presence of Norquist, an out-of-state conservative lobbyist representing anonymous, big monied interests makes a compelling case against holding a constitutional convention.

“The poster child of wealthy out-of-state special interests is Grover Norquist,” said Pablo Rodriguez, who is also President of Latino Public Radio, “whose could use a Constitutional Convention as a vehicle to buy any issue he wants. If we allow a Constitutional Convention, we will essentially be handing the keys of our government over to people like Norquist and his billionaire friends.”

“The average Rhode Islander who is struggling to pay the mortgage, afford child care so they can get to work, or put their kids through college doesn’t have the time or the resources to fight wealthy, out-of-state special interests like Grover Norquist and his billionaire backers, the Koch brothers,” said Kate Brewster.

“Grover Norquist is a guy who once said, ‘My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit,’” stated Michael Araujo. “Is this really who hard-working Rhode Islanders should be taking voting advice from?”

There is a reason that no state has held a constitutional convention since the last time we had one in Rhode Island, three decades ago. Big money wants to write the rules of our democracy, and corporate interests are served by weak governments that can’t afford to protect their citizens from being exploited.

May 1, 2014May 1, 2014

Citizens for Responsible Government forms to oppose Con-Con

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

A large and growing number of groups interested in civil rights and the democratic process started a campaign yesterday at the Old state House on Benefit St in Providence to defeat a Constitutional Convention. Speaking at the event and providing reasons to oppose a Constitutional Convention were representatives from six of the thirty groups that have so far signed on.

Citizens for Responsible Government spokesman Pablo Rodriguez, MD and President of Latino Public Radio said that a Con-Con is a threat to civil rights, “Across the country, issues like affirmative action, reproductive rights, gay rights, worker rights, senior citizen rights and immigrant rights have become fodder for expensive statewide campaigns mounted by well-funded, out-of-state special interests.”

“The 1986 Constitutional Convention quickly spiraled from ‘good government’ to abortion politics,” said Paula Hodges, Director of Planned Parenthood Southern New England. “Women should be very concerned.”

George Nee, of the RI AFL-CIO says that “A Constitutional Convention, for all intents and purposes, puts our Constitution up for sale.” Outside money may well flood our state in response to ballot measures, and opposing this will be expensive. “Our money can be better spent elsewhere.”

Speaking for the RI ACLU, Hillary Davis also outlined the dangers of a Con-Con, as did Michael S. Van Leesten, who has fought for civil rights in various capacities for over forty years.

The last speaker was Jennifer Stevens of Rhode Island Pride. “One year after winning equal marriage rights through our state legislature we remember our long struggle and recognize that the same groups and individuals who opposed gay rights, and funded our opposition, will wish to play a role in a constitutional convention,” she said, “Every Rhode Islander should be concerned about attempts… to roll back or stifle LGBTQ and minority rights.”

Full disclosure, the Humanists of Rhode Island, a group of which I am President, is a proud member of this new coalition. Also in the coalition are RI Alliance for Retired Americans, AFSCME, Central Falls Teachers Union, RI Commission for Human Rights, RI Commission on Occupational Safety and Health, RI Economic Progress Institute, Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals, Fuerza Laboral, IATSE Local 23, Jobs With Justice, National Association of Letter Carriers, National Council of Jewish Women RI, Providence Central Labor Council, Providence NAACP, RI National Association of Social Workers, RI NOW, RI Progressive Democrats, Secular Coalition for Rhode Island, UAW Local 7770, USW Local 16031, UWUA Local 310, UFCW Local 328, UNITE HERE, United Nurses and Allied Professionals, Warwick Teachers Union Local 915 and Women’s Health and Education Fund.

So far.

Michael S Van Leesten — Michael S. Van Leesten

April 17, 2014April 17, 2014

Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention: Balance of power

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

The March 29 conference on the convention was perhaps the whitest crowd I’ve ever been in in my life. And I’m not exaggerating there. That to me is demonstrative of what’s going on in the debate about the convention.

Let’s stop and remind ourselves that constitutions do not change how power is distributed in a state. They merely change the rules by which that power is fought for. Since the Bloodless Revolution, the state’s power has been mostly distributed to an alliance of white middle-class men (both blue and white collar) in the Democratic Party.

But one of things that makes the Bloodless Revolution important is that it removed the last power structures supporting the old elite; the middle- and upper-class WASP males of the Republican Party that had previously dominated Rhode Island politics since its founding. In its heyday, that alliance was vicious in its hold on power, and seriously corrupt, winning us the “for sale, and cheap” moniker its successors are fond of repeating. Today, it often sounds anti-democratic in its approach to the regular Rhode Island voter.

Both alliances have been extremely privileged by their long grasps on power in the state. And much of the Pro-convention rhetoric isn’t about empowering the traditionally marginalized. Thus, one of the conference panel’s seven white men can ignore the very real evidence to the contrary and claim that there isn’t much appetite to restrict civil liberties in Rhode Island.

No, much of the Pro-convention rhetoric seems to be about increasing the power of the old elite, even if it’s not explicitly advocated (and you’d be foolish too explicitly advocate for that). Ethics control has the potential to root out ethical misconduct that will reflect poorly on established political power. A line-item veto will increase the power of the Governor’s office, one of the few veto points in RI that the Republicans have had any chance at controlling.

This is what I suspect will ultimately doom the chances of the convention. In a battle for political power between two over-privileged groups, the average Rhode Islander is the loser. By outright dismissing the needs and fears of the sub-dominant groups in Rhode Island (women, immigrants, non-whites, the poor) the Pro-convention side appears tone-deaf and out-of-touch.

I worry that even those who believe in good faith in a convention are ignoring the power dynamics that are inherent in any political system. We put great stock in the Constitutional Convention that brought forth the US Constitution, but we forget that its drafters would be abhorred at the extension of the vote we see today. Elbridge Gerry (whom the “gerrymander” is named after) warned that “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” Edmund Randolph supported him by saying “…that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

In our dealing with own constitutional convention we need to shun such thoughts. If the same people who wonder aloud whether Rhode Islanders who don’t reach some arbitrary level of “intelligence” ought to be able to vote then turn around and call for a convention it is clearly not because they have found some faith in the voters of this state. If the same people who call voters idiots for electing incumbents over and over again are supportive of a constitutional convention it is not because they suddenly believe in the ability of the people to select their own representatives. It is because they sense an opportunity. And their opportunity will come at the expense of the people.

April 16, 2014April 17, 2014

Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention: Status quo bias

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

One of the most common refrains I hear from Pro-convention people is the need for a line-item veto for the governor’s office. Others argue for the need to re-assert the Ethics Commission oversight over the General Assembly. And maybe it’s just me, but I do not foresee voters citing these as their top concerns when it comes to whether to hold a convention or not. On one hand we have the possible de facto outlawing of abortion in Rhode Island. On the other, the governor gets to decide which parts of the budget he’ll strike down.

Maybe if a governor ever bothered to veto the budget, the case for line-item could be stronger. Certainly, forcing an override is a dramatic turn of events. Had Chafee vetoed the budget last year, it’s possible the House leadership might’ve collapsed as the Sakonnet River Bridge tolls controversy exploded. Instead he signed the budget, and the facade of tranquility in the House survived until the Five Days in March.

But this is precisely the point; Rhode Island only thinks about hypotheticals in relation to how things are now. Call it a sort of status quo bias. What many in the Pro-convention camp are calling for weak sauce reforms to the current state of affairs. Thus, we suggest that the governor gain the line-item veto, but fail to call into question whether a governor is even required in Rhode Island. The drum is beaten for eliminating the ballot’s straight party option, but we never ask ourselves whether first-past-the-post is the best voting system we should have.

A more recently trumpeted problem in the state is the lack of trust Rhode Islanders have in their government. The line-item veto does not restore trust. Ethics oversight might boost trust, but it is unlikely to change the lack of transparency in state government. Furthermore, none of the commonly proposed structural changes increases civic participation in government. The Pro-convention movement needs to pause and consider what reforms will genuinely make the citizenry of this state more active and involved in our democracy. Half-assed modifications of the current system are going to be rightfully ignored.

Part 1: Why now?
Part 2: The ‘unlimited’ convention
Tomorrow: Balance of Power

April 15, 2014April 17, 2014

Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention: The ‘unlimited’ convention

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

One of the major stumbling blocks to supporting a constitutional convention is the fact that it’s an “unlimited” convention.

It’s important, as Prof. Robert Williams of Rutgers University told the March 29 Conference, to remember that state constitutions don’t function like the US Constitution. The US Constitution grants power to the federal government, whereas state constitutions restrict the powers of the state governments.

But all constitutions also lay out the civil liberties their citizens can expect. And both functions of the constitution are up for review. Of the 14 amendments to come out of the 1986 convention, about six pertained to civil liberties in some manner.

This is an important reason to fear the risk of the convention. Even if all the delegates campaign solely on the structural part of constitutional change, there’s nothing stopping them from throwing in civil liberties amendments as well. In all likelihood, these amendments won’t increase civil liberties, but rather weaken them for non-dominant groups; women, recent immigrants, racial/ethnic minorities, and the incarcerated.

One suggestion offered by Prof. Williams was to have a “limited” convention. It’s possible to write an amendment to the state constitution that allows a convention to be called that can only focus on structural issues of government. However, that would require a popular, grassroots effort to force the General Assembly to do so. Engaging in that effort would demonstrate good faith that Pro-convention side is responsive to the concerns of the Anti-covention side. That could do a lot to win support for a future convention.

Part 1: Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention ‘Why now?’
Tomorrow: The status quo bias