Can We End Politics as Usual in RI? Yes, We CON! - James E. Fayal, Guest MINDSETTER™

Can We End Politics as Usual in RI? Yes, We CON! - James E. Fayal, Guest MINDSETTER™

I wish the Democrats, the ACLU, the labor unions, and other—otherwise progressive organizations in Rhode Island—would stop fearmongering about a Constitutional Convention (affectionately called a Con Con).

I’m not against any of these organizations. I’ve voted 99 percent of the time for Democrats; I’ve been a card-carrying member of the ACLU since 1988; my co-workers elected me as a delegate to a union assembly; and I’ve volunteered my time and money to many progressive organizations.

I’m firmly pro-Con Con. The anti-Constitutional Convention (con-Con Con?) coalition knows full well that any proposed amendments from the convention will not go into force until a majority of Rhode Island voters approve them in an election. Why do they think that Rhode Islanders can be hoodwinked by special interest money to vote for something they really don’t want?

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Why are they forgetting that after the last Con Con, the Rhode Island electorate, in 1986, wisely studied 14 amendments proposed by the convention and sensibly passed some and rejected others?

One that they famously rejected was the so-called “right to life” amendment, which would have essentially banned abortion. In 1986, close to two-thirds of Rhode Islanders identified as Catholic. Yet, the “right to life” amendment was rejected by…Wait. For. It … close to two-thirds of the voters!

Why aren’t they considering the most recent (2014) Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study, finding 63 percent of Rhode Island adults believe that “abortion should be legal in all/most cases”? And, to calm another fear, the Public Religion Research Institute’s polling between 2021 and 2023 that reports support for same-sex marriage in Rhode Island has fluctuated between 71 to 82 percent?

The 1986 convention led to many positive reforms, including: eliminating gender references in the constitution; establishing an ethics commission; requiring the adoption of campaign contributions/spending limits; prohibiting the state, or those doing business with it, from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, or handicap; affording victims of crime the right to compensation from perpetrators; guaranteeing public access to shore use; and restoring felons’ ability to vote automatically upon completion of their sentence and probation/parole.

A prominent right-wing political organization in Rhode Island is pushing for a yes vote on the convention, but do they really think that with only nine Republicans out of 75 in the current House of Representatives, that Con Con delegates, running in the identical House districts, would produce anything but an overwhelming majority of Democrat/liberal/progressive winners?

Many of the progressive organizations worked to defeat the Con Con question in previous decennial asks, and they always insist that any reform amendments can be passed through the General Assembly. Well, over the past decades since 1986, have the leaders of the Senate and House ever allowed even a floor vote on any of these popular possible amendments below?

·        Line-item veto for the governor: This could reduce the influence of the Legislative/Community Service grants program which is one of the main strategies the Senate Presidents and Speakers of the House have been able to keep lawmakers under their political control.

·        Independent non-partisan redistricting commission

·        Rank-choice voting or open primaries: Do we want to continue to have general officers elected for whom more citizens voted against?

·        Restore the governor’s ability to place non-binding resolutions on the ballot: In 2002, Governor Almond put such a question to voters regarding separation of powers. The people overwhelmingly approved the resolution, causing a shamed General Assembly (they had been fighting the idea) to place a binding referendum amendment on the ballot in 2004, and it passed. Then, in a 2006 power grab, the legislature voted to revoke a governor’s statutory power to do so in the future! 

·         Elimination of the Lt. Governor’s office or combining it with the secretary of state (as done in three states; four states do not even have a lieutenant governor).

·        Election of an auditor general

Are Rhode Island citizens and businesses happy with politics as usual in this state? The legislature and the former governor allowed the PawSox to leave, state leaders appear to have been unaware of Hasbro’s earlier overtures to Massachusetts for a relocation, the Democratic Party’s almost immediate replacement of Senator Cano’s spot on the November ballot seems like a backroom deal, and it’s doubtful if accountability for the Washington Bridge fiasco will ever occur.

Are we going to throw away this once-in-a-decade chance to make systemic changes to the way politics operates this state? Is there some other reason why the con-Con Con is against a Con Con? Or is their crusade really just a con-Con Con con?

 

James E. Fayal lives in Providence and blogs at jamesfayal.wordpress.com.