I just obtained the Rhode Island Ethics Commission's memorandum in support of its jurisdiction over legislators, which was contested by the former state senate president William V. Irons, as discussed in an earlier blog entry. The argument of the EC's brief is not typical, because the ethics commission and code were created pursuant to a 1986 constitutional amendment. Therefore, the principal argument for legislative immunity involves the harmonizing of the state's Speech in Debate clause with the amendment. The court, however, harmonized the two differently, considering it more important to preserve two apparently conflicting provisions wherever possible. Of course, the judge didn't do this, but actually eviscerated one of the most important parts of the ethics amendment, because state legislators' misconduct was central to the writing and passing of the ethics amendment.

We should know soon whether the Ethics Commission will be appealing the decision, and if so, on what grounds.