RIconcon – RI Future

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?

May 8, 2014May 9, 2014

A General Assembly, united

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

The prospect of a Constitutional Convention in Rhode Island is among the most prescient and hotly debated issues in Rhode Island politics today. Detractors of a Con-Con worry that the influence of monied special interests would essentially buy their way into a constitution that benefits those special interests. Supporters say that the convention would be a perfect opportunity to equalize, to some extent, the balance of power between our legislative and executive branches. These are certainly not the only pro/con arguments vis-a-vis a constitutional convention, and both sides have extremely valid points, but one radical idea that I think is missing from the discussion is the opportunity to create a unicameral legislature in Rhode Island.

For many years, the R.I. House and Senate have suffered from a serious disconnect. While the two bodies may convene mere steps away from one another, there seems to be a gaping intellectual and ideological chasm between them. All too often, bills that have broad-based support in the House fail to even make their way out of committee on the Senate side, and those that do often face unwarranted scrutiny and kibbitzing on the Senate side. Let’s look at some examples.

Last year, the issue of Same Sex Marriage was passed from the House floor 51-19; an overwhelming majority. When the bill reached the Senate, there was an effort to change the bill by inserting some outrageously discriminatory language concerning the “rights” of business owners to refuse their services to prospective same sex couples if they had a religious or moral compunction to do so. Most civil liberty watchdogs saw that these provisions fell dangerously close to “separate but equal,” and the bill eventually passed into law unadulterated due, in large part, to (GASP!) Senate Republicans.

For the last four years, the issue of Payday Lending Reform has garnered a lot of attention. The coalition behind the reform legislation has worked tirelessly to inform the legislature on the predatory lending practices of these institutions, and last year had support from 52 of 75 Representatives and 28 of 38 Senators, but can’t seem to make it out of committee on either side. While this is not indicative of the disconnect between the two bodies, it is indicative of the influence of lobbies on our legislature. Despite the broad support, one man, former Speaker of the House and lobbyist for one of the two payday lenders operating in Rhode Island, Bill Murphy, seems to be single-handedly preventing the legislature from executing the people’s will.

This week, the move to abolish the master lever, or single-party vote, passed through the House unanimously, 71-0. The bill has 18 cosponsors in the Senate – which is just one shy of the votes it would take to pass this bill – and yet, it seems that Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed is all but completely ignoring what most rational folks would call a mandate, and not immediately urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to move the bill to the Senate floor for a straight up/down vote. Paiva-Weed has vowed to “keep an open mind” and “review the testimony,” but those statements are akin to your parents’ answer of ‘maybe’ when you ask if you can have ice cream. 99 times out of 100, maybe means no.

So, why is there this gap between the House and Senate? The House is arguably a more accurately representational body than the Senate, so why is the Senate not taking their cues from their colleagues in the House? Frankly, I am at a loss as to why this happens, but I think that a unicameral legislature would go a long way to fixing this problem while, at the same time, streamlining the committee process.

In a unicameral legislature, the number of committees could be cut in half. No longer would concerned citizens and public interest groups have to attend two committee hearings on the same issue, delivering the same testimony to both bodies. No longer would electeds have to serve on more than two committees, which often forces them to duck out of one committee meeting to attend another, often missing critical testimony on a particular issue. I daresay we could expand the membership of existing committees, which could – and would – provide for a more vigorous vetting process for proposed legislation.

Keep in mind, I am not proposing to eliminate the Senators, just the Senate. The unicameral legislature would become a single body of 113 members, with half the number of committees to staff, and cut staffers at the state house in half. Just having a single press bureau for the legislature would cut spending significantly.

Over the years, there has been a lot of speculation of the effects of consolidating municipal services in Rhode Island. Most agree that we could save a ton of money by allowing cities and towns to share services and financial burdens, but let’s start by looking to the body that affects all of Rhode Island: our fractured General Assembly.

(Note: The only state in the U.S. that has a unicameral legislature is Nebraska. Their legislative elections are also non-partisan, which is a whole other post!)

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

April 14, 2014April 14, 2014

Pro-convention reasons against a constitutional convention: Why now?

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

The reason the debate about a constitutional convention is happening now is because RI is constitutionally obligated to do so. The 2014 election will mark 10 years since Rhode Islanders were last asked to have a convention. Since 1984, they’ve rejected it at each election. It’s unclear how they’ll vote this time.

To some extent, the pro-convention side has been portraying this as the last chance we’ll have for the next ten years. It’s imperative that we fix our problems through a constitutional convention, and that it be done by 2016. And while that’s a good case if you assume nothing else changes, it’s a weak reason to have a convention.

This is the first of a four-part series on a potential constitutional convention and why we should not have one this year. Read more later this week.

Legislators have the power to place the convention question on the ballot at any election. There’s many reasons why they will not, but a pretty obvious one is that there’s no constituent pressure to do so. And if there’s no constituent pressure, that means there isn’t a popular demand.

That’s a serious problem. While the convention might be the desire of outsider reformers who can’t get changes through the General Assembly, it’s not something they’re willing to push the General Assembly to do. Without that prior pressure and popular support, the pro-convention side looks less genuine in their desire to hold a convention to improve government and more like political opportunists taking advantage of a required process.

Regrouping and lobbying the General Assembly to place the convention on the ballot has numerous advantages. First, it helps build organizational capacity, which will be useful later for ensuring a serious reform faction among the delegates. Second, it enlists support before the question is required to be asked, forcing media coverage and public interest to happen before the year the question is placed on the ballot. Even if the effort is stymied for ten years, a concerted campaign will make the public far more receptive to a convention then if they’d been ignored.