Issa introduced legislation in response to CF ballot confusion

By VINAYA SAKSENA

CENTRAL FALLS — A state legislator from Central Falls believes that voters have recently found themselves voting on ballot questions that have not been sufficiently explained to them, and hopes to have that problem rectified via a bill approved in the Senate this week.

In January, State Sen. Daniel J. Issa introduced a bill that would add a new rule to Rhode Island General Law Chapter 17-8, which governs local canvassing authorities. The bill would require those local authorities to inform voters of local ballot questions by mail — something the senator said was already practiced by some communities, but was not incorporated into state law.
In a statement announcing the bill’s senate passage, Issa suggested that communities should be required to clearly inform citizens of what local initiatives they will be voting on come election time, and exactly what they mean. He said the bill was inspired by complaints he had received from Central Falls residents about questions that appeared on the city’s ballot in the last couple of years, which they said were confusing or inadequately explained.
“It’s a right to know,” Issa said. “I just think that it’s a fair thing to do. Don’t you think people have the right to know what’s on the ballot?”
The main impetus for the bill, Issa said, was a ballot question put before Central Falls voters in 2006. On a copy of the 2006 ballot obtained by The Times, the question read: “Shall the Home Rule Charter of the City of Central Falls be amended to incorporate the changes proposed by the Charter Review Commission and approved by the Central Falls City Council?” Issa said he had received complaints from citizens that the question, which ultimately passed, was too vague, and did not specifically indicate that the proposed charter changes included increasing the mayor’s term from two years to four years.
Central Falls City Council President William Benson Jr., who proposed the change, said he did so in order to allow the mayor to spend more of his or her term focusing on work for the city, rather than campaigning, which he said could take several months in the lead-up to an election. He said he also wanted to have city council members’ terms extended in the same fashion at the time, but that this idea was defeated by the majority of the council, including then-Council President Jay Ledger. Benson said that both he and Mayor Charles Moreau had cautioned the other council members against voting the proposal down, noting that a longer term for the mayor only could put councilors who did not side with the mayor at a political disadvantage.
“It’s not good for the mayor to have four years and not the council,” Benson said. “A mayor could systematically pick and choose who he wanted to knock off the council.”
A second charter amendment appeared on the ballot the following year, with the ballot this time specifically indicating that approval of the question would have the effect of “increasing the term for City Council Members from 2 (two) to 4 (four) years commencing in 2009,” the same year the previous charter change would take effect. Like the 2006 question, this initiative passed. Benson said the more specific language of this question was enabled by the fact that it was the only change being voted on, as opposed to the 2006 question, which he said incorporated several “housekeeping” amendments to the charter, making their individual listing in advertisements unfeasible.
“We changed a lot of things in the charter,” Benson said of the 2006 question. “If you listed every single thing, it would cost (too much).”
Benson added that the city had to submit the charter changes to Issa’s office several times, after the senator claimed never to have received them. Once the question was approved by voters, however, Issa put the amendments up for ratification by the Senate, according to a Rhode Island General Assembly press release from May of 2007.
Issa acknowledged that his bill had faced some opposition from local election officials in various communities. For this reason, he said, the bill was amended to accommodate their needs. In its current form, the rule would take effect on Jan. 1, 2009.
Under the new rule, a city or town would be required to run either “the full text of each legislative act to be acted upon” or a summary of each act in at least one local newspaper and display it prominently in public places. The information to be publicized in this manner would include “the designated number of the question,” a “brief caption of the question” and a brief explanation of the matter to which the question relates. For financial questions, the estimated cost of the project being voted on, along with information on its purpose and expected lifespan, would also be required in a direct mailing to voters.
The city’s registrar, Gertrude Chartier, said she had not read the text of the bill, and therefore had not taken a specific position on it. However, she said she had heard concern about the bill from her counterparts in other communities. She said she was not opposed to the legislation in principle, but expressed concern that it not place additional financial burdens on communities, many of which are already strapped by increasing budgetary difficulties.
“I would not mind notifying registered voters,” Chartier said. “But somebody will have to produce the booklet” explaining ballot referenda.
Chartier noted that some state offices had taken to publishing documents online, giving cities and towns the option to print the materials on their own, rather than incurring the cost of printing at the state level. She added that some of her peers had expressed concern about the additional cost of printing and mailing ballot question information. Issa said the cost of doing this would likely not be significant, and would be a non-issue if there were no questions on a ballot in a particular year.
“You’re talking about maybe a couple hundred dollars a year,” Issa said. “And that’s if, and only if, there’s a charter amendment or something.”
Chartier said she was not certain what the cost would be in reality, but noted that Issa’s estimate may not be far off the mark for Central Falls. However, she pointed out that the cost may be higher for larger communities with larger numbers of registered voters.
Issa’s bill will now be considered by the House of Representatives. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, according to information on the General Assembly’s Web site.