RI Supreme Court Prefers Speech in Debate Clause to Constitutional Authority of Ethics Commission Over Legislators

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has reached a decision on the legislative immunity case (Irons v. RI Ethics Commission) involving the state ethics commission and the state legislature. As expected, its majority opinion (it was a 3-1 split) concluded that the state's Speech in Debate Clause 100% overrides the 1986 constitutional amendment that granted the state ethics commission full authority over state legislators. Here's how the majority presented the conflict between the constitutional provisions:


Note the prejudice in favor of something "ancient and venerable" in favor of something newfangled. And isn't it unusual for a constitutional amendment to explicitly refer to other constitutional provisions it may, in small part, override?

The dissent, by the newly appointed chief justice, concludes, "it is my opinion that the express application of the ethics amendment to '[a]ll elected * * * officials' necessarily implies a limitation on the full reach of the speech in debate clause. In other words, I would hold that in matters concerning the ethical conduct of legislators the ethics amendment creates a narrow exception to the immunity historically adhering to legislators in the performance of their legislative activities. Such a construction of our constitution, I believe, gives greater effect to the intent of the convention delegates and electorate in 1986 than an interpretation that places legislators beyond the reach of the ethics commission for violations of the code of ethics with respect to their performance of legislative activities."

This is not your typical legislative immunity decision. It says nothing about the applicability of legislative immunity to ethics commissions. It deals only with a conflict between constitutional provisions. The thing to learn from it is to explicitly, in big CAPITAL LETTERS, put your ethics authority over legislators in the charter and say that it overrides all common-law and, if there are any, charter-based legislative immunities for local government legislators. Otherwise, this decision has no relevance to local government ethics.

Here's the first comment to the Providence Journal article on the decision:


One wonders why, if the Speech in Debate Clause is so venerable and, as the majority decision states, the public is "the ultimate beneficiary" of it, the public cares so little for this clause. And one wonders why, when the public, disgusted with the misconduct of its legislators, votes by an enormous margin to effectively override the Speech in Debate Clause, its will is ignored in favor of a provision that was designed to protect legislators from a king, a provision that, venerable as it may be, the Rhode Island public, if it could vote directly on it, would almost certainly repeal as it applies to all ethics and criminal enforcement.

Here are links to my other blog posts on the Rhode Island case:

Superior Court Decision
Ethics Commission Brief
Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---