News & Commentary

The ACLU of RI is proud to testify today in support of the Community Safety Act at the Providence City Council's Ordinance Committee public hearing.  The comprehensive ordinance was spearheaded by the STEP Up Coalition to ban racial profiling and other discriminatory practices by Providence law enforcement, and "change the way that police interact with members of our community…"

The ACLU of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Disability Law Center have sent a letter to every police chief in Rhode Island urging them to ensure their policies comply with federal anti-discrimination laws regarding accommodations for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The letter was prompted by the organizations' recent settlement of a federal lawsuit on behalf of Woonsocket resident David Alves. In July 2015, Alves, who is profoundly deaf, was unlawfully arrested and detained overnight by Woonsocket police and was not provided an interpreter or any other services to allow him to communicate. 

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown issued the following statement addressing yesterday’s actions by Cranston police in ticketing individuals engaged in peaceful protest.

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown issued the following statement on “sanctuary city” threats from the U.S. Attorney General.

For a few years, members of the LGBTQ community and other allies have been pressing the General Assembly for passage of legislation that would ban mental health providers from engaging in “sexual orientation change efforts” (colloquially known as “conversion therapy”) with clients who are minors. While the ACLU of Rhode Island both appreciates and supports the intent behind this bill, and has been an active supporter of LGBTQ rights for decades, we have opposed the legislation, largely because of some of its potential unintended consequences. In this blog, we try to explain our position more thoroughly, especially since our opposition to the legislation does not mean we oppose other means of addressing therapists who engage in this questionable practice.

Our right to vote means little if the government imposes undue restrictions on who can run for office. Lately, we've witnessed a troubling trend to this effect. Earlier this week, we raised concerns about a proposal to bar candidates from running for office if they owed election fines. Now, the House Judiciary Committee is considering a bill that would require Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates to publicly disclose their federal tax returns in order to appear on the election ballot in Rhode Island. Because we believe that the burdens on qualifying for the ballot should be as minimal as possible, this requirement sets a troubling precedent and is poor policy.

Governor Gina Raimondo has announced the introduction of a “Good Government Reform” package of legislation designed to “restore confidence in government.” There’s a lot to be said for that, but one of the proposals – barring candidates who owe campaign fines from running for office – should be rejected.

Will Warwick take the high road that municipalities like Providence and Newport have done, and reject attempts to enact or enforce punitive anti-panhandling ordinances that seek to "solve" poverty by hiding it from public view? Or will they take the low road, like Cranston, which, after being successfully sued by the ACLU over an ordinance banning "solicitation on roadways," decided to pass a cosmetically revised ordinance last month that will once again be challenged?

In honor of Sunshine Week and open government, here's an example of the absurdities that sometimes result when the public is denied their right to know. A redacted version of our plaintiff's police report from a suit we won in 2008 (presumably the missing section contains highly sensitive information):