Will RI Supreme Court favor RI Voters in Irons appeal?
The RI Ethics Commission used a R.I. Supreme Court decision to dismiss ethics charges against John Harwood after he was accused of representing clients in cases before state agencies (“Leaders defend paying ex-Speaker Harwood’s bill (ProJo, May 22, 2009). The reporter then asks our legislative leaders if they will also pay Ex-Senate President Bill Iron’s legal fees in his case before the same court. There is a huge difference in the Supreme Court’s role in each case. It had no active role in the Harwood case. However, in the Irons case the Ethics Commission’s ability to prosecute state officials depends on the Supreme Court’s decision. Irons is using the speech in debate clause in our constitution to say he can not be prosecuted when he uses his vote to violate state ethics laws. But our constitution was amended in 1986 to give the Commission this power. The speech in debate protection prevents the other branches of government from harassing legislators when they don’t like the legislators’ votes. It wasn’t meant to protect legislators when they use their vote to break the law. A Jan. 11, 2009 ProJo commentary by Carroll Morse points out the U.S. Supreme Court Justices have left open the question of whether this legislative immunity would hold when a member of Congress violates either the Senate or House Codes of Conduct.
If the R.I. Supreme Court takes this power away from the Ethics Commission, there will be a double standard for these ethics laws. All state officials except state legislators will still be bound by these laws. Was this the intent of the constitutional convention delegates that drafted the 1986 ethics amendment or the intent of the R. I. voters who ratified this amendment? No! Let’s hope our highest court decides in favor of the Ethics Commission, in favor of honest government, and in favor of the state’s voters. Published in Providence Journal on may 30, 2009 and written by Robert A. benson, Jr.