Legislation

Legislation supported by the ACLU would have allowed for certain terminally ill patients to make knowing and competent decisions about death and peacefully determine the end of their lives with dignity, autonomy, and privacy.

As the ACLU and others press to remove law enforcement from schools, a bill introduced this session would have instead created a “school security committee” charged with facilitating the presence of “armed security personnel” in every school and promoting techniques for student surveillance.

As a state with one of the most protective Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights statutes in the country, it is long past time for significant revisions to be made to this law. A number of bills to do that were introduced this session.

While most states employ a statewide certification or decertification system for law enforcement personnel, RI is one of only four states that does not. This legislation would have corrected that by creating strict criteria for the decertification of officers who engage in unacceptable conduct.

In addition to commenting on the importance of properly apportioned districts as a component of voting rights and racial justice, we urged several amendments to bills which would create a commissions charged with the task redrawing district lines.

We supported a bill which would have allowed for members of the public to testify on an item on a public meetings agenda even if the item has been withdrawn or postponed.

We opposed this legislation which would have given any police officer the authority currently given to high-ranking law enforcement personnel to obtain personally identifiable information from telecommunication companies without any judicial intervention.

We expressed support for legislation that would have allowed the Secretary of State to seek judicial relief if a state or municipal agency is unlawfully destroying or otherwise failing to properly maintain public records, a power that she presently lacks.

While current Rhode Island law prohibits employment discrimination based upon a medical marijuana patient’s status as a cardholder, some employers have claimed that they can fire or not hire a cardholder who tests positive for marijuana on a drug test.