| Dear Neighbors:
This afternoon, I will attend the annual reading of President Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, in which he pledged the United States government “to give bigotry no sanction.” Along with our founding by Roger Williams, the Gaspee Incident, and the May 4th, 1776 Act of Renunciation, Washington’s letter holds a special place in our State’s grand historical heritage. In this week’s (certainly much less significant) letter to our District, I write about Governor McKee’s nomination of Superior Court Judge Luis Matos to serve on our state’s Supreme Court.
A. The Nomination of Judge Matos
On Wednesday, Governor McKee nominated Judge Matos to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court resulting from Justice Goldberg’s retirement. As stated in the Governor’s Announcement, Judge Matos comes to the Supreme Court after a career that includes 12 years as a Superior Court judge and more than a decade as an Assistant United States Attorney. The General Assembly will review this nomination for advice and consent after the November election. While my due diligence will continue, from what I know today Judge Matos could make a valuable addition to our highest Court.
B. The Application of Former Speaker Shekarchi
Governor McKee did not nominate former House of Representatives Speaker Joseph Shekarchi. After Mr. Shekarchi applied for the position, he became the subject of a Rhode Island Ethics Commission complaint asserting that his application was barred by the “revolving door” prohibition codified in the State’s Code of Ethics, under which elected officials cannot take certain appointed positions until at least one year after the conclusion of their term in office. The Ethics Commission found that Mr. Shekarchi violated this rule. Mr. Shekarchi brought a lawsuit to challenge the Ethics Commission’s decision. The Superior Court held that the “revolving door” prohibition did not apply to his application to the Supreme Court. The Ethics Commission appealed the Superior Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court, where it remains pending. Even though Mr. Shekarchi is not the nominee, the Ethics Commission seeks a final court ruling on the issue to clarify the legal standard going forward.
C. The Policy and Logic of the “Revolving Door” Rule
While the legal question remains unsettled, I personally believe the “revolving door” rule should apply to legislators seeking to go directly onto the Supreme Court. As noted in this opinion piece by former Common Cause director H. Phillip West, Jr., the “revolving door” rule was a response to scandals resulting when General Assembly leaders moved directly into the Supreme Court as a justice (Joseph Bevilacqua) or court administrator (Matthew Smith). Mr. Shekarchi’s legal argument centers around his interpretation of the Code’s exception for a “constitutional office,” which he claims includes the Supreme Court. His argument would produce the anomaly of sitting legislators being ineligible for lower courts (Traffic Tribunal, Workers Compensation Court, Family Court, District Court and Superior Court) but eligible for the Supreme Court, which is the most desirable position and the most consequential in terms of prior scandals.
D. Next Steps
I will follow the progress of the Supreme Court case. If the Supreme Court finds that current law allows sitting legislators to join the Supreme Court without waiting a year, I will work on an appropriate legislative response to clarify and re-establish this important pillar of our Code of Ethics. I also will consider submitting legislation to reform Judicial Nominating Commission procedures after it was reported that three Commission members, who had previously contributed an aggregate total of more than $30,000 to Mr. Shekarchi’s campaign fund, voted to interview Mr. Shekarchi and send his name to the Governor without either recusing or disclosing this connection prior to their votes. |
