| Dear Neighbors:
I recently spoke with a 17-year old student who was proud to cast his first vote ever in Tuesday’s Presidential primary. Rhode Island law now grants him this right because he will attain the age of 18 in time for November’s election. Because I celebrated my 18th birthday in October, 1976, I was able to vote in that year’s November election, but not in the Rhode Island primary that preceded it. In this week’s letter, I will discuss a Constitutional right to education and the broader question of a general Constitutional convention.
1. The Senate Bill
Last Wednesday, the Senate Education Committee heard Bill S-2417 which, if enacted, would become half of a joint General Assembly resolution to allow a November ballot question on whether to amend the Rhode Island Constitution to include a judicially enforceable right to education. The Senate has passed this legislation each of the last several years, but unfortunately the House of Representatives has not concurred. We learned Wednesday that 51 House members (of a total of 76) support the legislation this year, but there is no guarantee that the House leadership will permit a vote to occur.
2. The Significance Of This Constitutional Right
It might surprise many Rhode Islanders to learn that our Constitution does not already contain such a right; however, the Supreme Court has interpreted Rhode Island’s Constitution to place sole (or “plenary”) authority for educational policy in the General Assembly. I believe such a right (which is recognized in a majority of states including Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York), could overcome the political challenges limiting our ability to provide the best possible public education for our children. Prior to my election to the Senate, I represented the Woonsocket School Committee in a lawsuit seeking to establish this Constitutional right, but unfortunately the courts dismissed the lawsuit.
I believe that if the voters were allowed the opportunity, they would approve this amendment by a wide margin. I am frustrated by the General Assembly’s inability to allow the voters to decide an important issue that could have wide support and, in my opinion, would grant Rhode Island’s children a precious and essential Constitutional right.
3. A Constitutional Convention
a. The 1986 Convention
While most recent amendments to Rhode Island’s Constitution have come from specific referenda authorized by the General Assembly under Section 1 of Article XIV of the Rhode Island Constitution, Section 2 provides an alternative path. Under Section 2, we voters must have the opportunity, at least once every ten years, to decide the question of whether to hold a general constitutional convention. Under that procedure, the voters elect delegates who meet to develop a set of proposed amendments which are placed on the ballot for the next general election. The voters last approved such a convention in 1984, and the delegates presented fourteen proposed amendments for the voters to consider on the 1986 ballot. As reported in the Board of Elections record, the voters passed eight of them and rejected six. Among those that passed were an updated rewriting of the Constitution and the establishment of the Ethics Commission. Among the ones rejected (by nearly a 2:1 margin) was a proposed anti-abortion amendment.
b. A Safety Valve For Voters
At Wednesday’s hearing, the American Civil Liberties Union stated its support for Bill S-2417. I asked whether it would support a general Constitutional convention to consider a right to education (among other possible amendments) if the House of Representatives continued to deny voter consideration of a specific education amendment. The ACLU said it opposed a general convention, citing the 1986 proposed anti-abortion amendment as an example of the poor policy that can result from such a process.
While I value much of the ACLU’s work, and while I strongly support a woman’s right to choose, I part company with the ACLU on the question of the value of a general Constitutional convention. I believe the Ethics Commission amendments of 1986 represent a valuable legacy of the 1986 convention, and that voters’ conclusive rejection of a proposed anti-abortion amendment in 1986 proves that we can trust voters to make wise decisions about our Constitution. I believe Article XIV, Section 2’s Constitutional convention “safety valve” is especially important when we elected officials are unable to enact measures for which there is strong popular support.
3. The 2024 Ballot Question
Under the above-quoted Article XIV, Section 2, the Secretary of State is required to place the question of a general constitutional convention on the ballot at least every ten years. The last time the voters had that opportunity was in 2014; therefore, I believe it is possible that we will have the chance to vote on this question in November. Article XIV, Section 2 requires that:
- Prior to a vote by the qualified electors on the holding of a convention, the general assembly, or the governor if the general assembly fails to act, shall provide for a bi-partisan preparatory commission to assemble information on constitutional questions for the electors
I am not aware of the progress (or for that matter the existence) of such a bipartisan preparatory commission. After Wednesday’s hearing, I plan to inquire about the status of this commission, as we voters should have the best information available about the advantages and disadvantages of a constitutional convention prior to casting a vote on fundamental question of State government. |
