Question 1 on the 2024 Rhode Island ballot asked voters to either approve or reject holding a constitutional convention, which would open up Rhode Island’s state constitution for revisions and amendments.
In every year ending with a four, this convention question appears on the ballot. Upon an approval from voters, a special off-year election would be held the following year, allowing voters to determine delegates for the convention. One year later, the convention would be held for delegates to bring forth amendments and revisions.
Public hearings held by the bipartisan preparatory commission for a constitutional convention revealed worries over impacts on existing rights, outside influence and the process itself. On the other hand, citizens could also voice changes they wanted to see, such as establishing a right to education or limitations on solitary confinement.
Co-chair of the preparatory commission Rep. Robert Craven voiced personal doubts about the convention.
“This isn’t the way to get stuff done,” he said. “No other state has attempted [this] successfully.”
The last time Rhode Island had a convention, or any state, delegates approved 25 potential amendments to appear on the ballot. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, convention delegates had to “bundle” the amendments into 14 packages. This meant, for example, that those who voted to protect free speech were also voting down a constitutional right to abortion.
“You have another convention, you know that’s going to come up,” Darlene Netoch, president of the Warwick Teachers Union, said about Rhode Island’s constitutional protection to abortion and contraceptives. “The other side is gonna go get the Koch Brothers or whoever to fund, you know, whatever propaganda they want to fund.”
Netoch is talking about the potential influence of outside funds, or “dark money.” According to the nonprofit OpenSecrets, “Dark money is political spending with the intent of swaying a voters’ decision that cannot be traced back to a donor or organization.” Politically active nonprofits often have no legal obligations to disclose their donors. Those that do generally receive funds through untraceable “shell companies,” a business with no significant assets or operations.
Christopher Shea, a political journalist at the Rhode Island Current, isn’t totally convinced these are a major threat.
“How plausible is it in Rhode Island to me?” Shea said. “Well it’s dependent on how polarized it can truly be. In a post-Citizens-United world, anything is truly possible in politics.”
Shea is referencing the Citizens’ United v. Federal Election Commission court case from 2010.
“The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups,” according to the nonprofit organization Brennan Center for Justice.
The most direct impact of this has been the creation of “super PACs,” or political action committees, that allow wealthy donors to spend unlimited “dark money” on campaigns. This is the cause of concern for many Rhode Islanders.
This article was produced in conjunction with the University of Rhode Island’s public affairs reporting class under the journalism and public relations department.