As a consequential Election Day approaches, this letter discusses an upcoming town hall meeting concerning the Washington Bridge demolition and Question No. 1 that will appear on our November ballot.
1. The Washington Bridge Demolition
Rhode Island’s Department of Transportation (RIDOT) began demolition of the old Washington Bridge on a problematic note, failing to notify neighbors about the anticipated disruption, or engage neighbors in a discussion about how to mitigate impacts. RIDOT then paused the demolition to allow the lawsuit parties to collect evidence. In preparation for the resumption of demolition next week, RIDOT notified residents yesterday that it is holding a virtual town hall meeting to engage with affected residents to provide information and receive feedback. The meeting will take place tomorrow evening, Friday, October 11 at 6:00 p.m. You can join the meeting by sending an email to RIDOT’s liaison Lindsey Sasso, at lindsey.sasso@dot.ri.gov. Many of us (myself included) will be observing Yom Kippur at that time. For those of us who cannot attend, RIDOT will post a recording of the meeting on its Washington Bridge web page.
2. Ballot Question 1 (Constitutional Convention)
Early voting begins next Wednesday, October 16. In addition to candidate races, we will consider six ballot questions. Questions 2-6 will seek voter approval for bond issues, which I will discuss in future letters. Question 1 asks voter approval for a Constitutional convention. I will be voting in favor of Question 1, as I believe it can bring to Rhode Island a much needed judicially enforceable Constitutional right to education, as well as many other important reforms that have proven incapable of passage through the General Assembly.
A. Balancing Risks and Rewards
As the opponents of Question 1 make clear, a Constitutional convention carries the risk of enactment of harmful changes to our State’s basic law that cannot be changed through legislation. Our task as voters therefore becomes that of balancing the risks against the potential rewards.
B. Possible Rewards
I discussed this balance in my Testimony to the General Assembly’s preparatory commission. In addition to a judicially enforceable right to education, I suggested these possible Constitutional reforms that a convention could submit to the voters for approval:
· Same day voter registration;
· Ending lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices;
· Allowing ranked choice voting;
· Creating a remedy for Constitutional torts.
I believe that these items, (1) have proven difficult if not impossible for General Assembly approval, (2) could improve our State and (3) have a chance of gaining popular support. I am sure that there are many other reforms that meet these criteria if we approve a Constitutional Convention.
C. Weighing the Risks
Opponents of a convention emphasize that the elected delegates who formulate the proposed amendments will operate in an opaque setting that could produce proposals that would be harmful to precious civil rights, such as a woman’s right to choose or marriage equality to name two. While these prospects are scary, it is important for us as voters to determine the likelihood of this risk. Fortunately, we have some data on which to base that evaluation.
More specifically, Rhode Island last approved a Constitutional convention in 1985, submitting 14 proposed amendments for voter consideration. One of them was an anti-abortion proposal, which the voters rejected by a margin of almost two to one. On the other hand, voters approved eight of the remaining 13 proposals, bringing to Rhode Island such valuable improvements as:
· An independent Ethics Commission;
· A Constitutional right to shoreline access;
· A crime victim’s bill of rights.
The other amendments voters approved were less significant in my opinion, but none of them were harmful to the State, in contrast to the prophecies of doom we are hearing from this year’s opponents to a Constitutional convention. We should not be limited by our abstract fears.
D. Conclusion
To conclude, the opponents of Question 1 are silent about the potential benefits of a Constitutional convention, not even discussing how Rhode Island benefited in 1986. Instead, the opponents are trying to scare us by imagining the horrible proposals that a Constitutional Convention could present to the voters. The opponents do not discuss the fact that we Rhode Island voters have the final say on any proposal that comes out of a Constitutional convention. They also do not discuss the available data we have from 1986, in which Rhode Island voters made wise choices.
Put another way, I find it sad that the opponents of Question 1 have such a low opinion of our ability as voters to approve beneficial proposals and to reject harmful ones. Indeed, many of the arguments they have presented on this issue through the media and campaign literature, with their incomplete and skewed information, similarly reflect a low opinion of us as voters. If you, as I do, have confidence in your ability as a voter, and the ability of Rhode Island voters generally, to make wise choices for our State, I encourage you to vote in favor of Question 1.
I wish those of you observing Yom Kippur an easy and meaningful fast.