RI high court: No prosecution for lawmakers’ votes

PROVIDENCE—Rhode Island’s Ethics Commission cannot prosecute lawmakers for their votes, the state’s highest court said Monday, in a decision that threatens to weaken the agency’s authority.

The Supreme Court said in its 3-1 opinion that the Rhode Island constitution makes lawmakers immune from criminal or civil prosecution when they propose, debate and vote on State House bills or carry out other legislative acts.

Related Link: Read the decision (.pdf)

The opinion affirms a decision last year by Superior Court Judge Francis Darigan, who dismissed an ethics complaint accusing former Senate President William Irons of a conflict of interest when he voted against legislation opposed by the CVS pharmacy chain, a business client.

At issue in the case is the “speech-in-debate” clause of the state constitution, which says: “For any speech in debate in either House, no member shall be questioned in any other place.“

The principle of legislative immunity dates from the English Bill of Rights and is also recognized in the U.S. Constitution.

Lawyers for the Ethics Commission, a quasi-judicial panel that enforces the state ethics code and has the power to fine public officials, had warned that the agency’s power would be severely diluted if it were unable to prosecute lawmakers based on their votes.

“Today the Supreme Court dealt a sharp blow to ethical government in Rhode Island,“ Common Cause Rhode Island said in a written statement, adding that a critical tool for policing unethical behavior has been removed from the commission’s arsenal.

Commission prosecutor Jason Gramitt said the opinion “removes a very visible aspect of the Ethics Commission’s enforcement authority, perhaps the most visible.“ But he also said cases over lawmaker votes, though high-profile, account for only a small portion of the commission’s work.

The commission’s most recent high-profile prosecution of a lawmaker for his State House actions came in 2006, when former Sen. John Celona was fined $130,000 for selling the influence of his office.

The Supreme Court noted that legislators may still be prosecuted for other ethical breaches - such as filing false financial disclosure forms, improperly accepting gifts or soliciting bribes.

“The immunity afforded merely precludes the Ethics Commission from prosecuting within a narrow class of core legislative acts,“ the justices wrote.

John Tarantino, a lawyer for Irons, said his client was pleased and that the court’s decision affirms the protections of the speech-in-debate clause.

Gramitt had argued that the “speech-in-debate” clause was effectively repealed in 1986, when the state Constitution was amended to establish the Ethics Commission. But the court rejected that argument.

Though the decision deals explicitly with the Ethics Commission, Gramitt said it could easily be applied to other state law enforcement agencies.

Justice Paul Suttell, who was confirmed last week as the court’s new chief justice, was the lone dissenter.