R.I. judge questions complaint accusing former House speaker Shekarchi of violating ‘revolving door’ provision

WARWICK, R.I. — A state judge on Monday raised questions about an Ethics Commission complaint that claims former House speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi violated a “revolving door” provision of the ethics code by applying for a Rhode Island Supreme Court vacancy.

Read more A wave of student loan borrowers have entered default since pandemic-era protections lapsed

The nearly two-hour hearing delved into the legal meaning of words such as “or” and “seeking,” but no final decision was reached.

Superior Court Judge Richard A. Licht said he plans to issue a decision by the end of the day July 27 because the Judicial Nominating Commission is scheduled to meet on July 28 to interview Shekarchi and four other applicants for the Supreme Court seat.

Shekarchi, a Warwick Democrat, stepped down from the speaker’s position on May 7, while remaining in his House District 23 seat, as he applied for the post left vacant when Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg retired.

Professor Michael J. Yelnosky, former dean of the Roger Williams University School of Law, filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission, arguing that Shekarchi had violated a “revolving door” provision of the ethics code that “prohibits a state elected official, while holding state office and for a period of one year after leaving office, from seeking or accepting employment with any other state agency.”

Shekarchi’s lawyer brought the matter to court on June 25, asking a judge to declare that Shekarchi has not violated the ethics code and order the Ethics Commission to dismiss the complaint.

Licht — a former lieutenant governor, state senator, and administration director who faced “revolving door” questions when he applied for a judgeship 13 years ago — peppered Ethics Commission chief prosecutor Jason M. Gramitt with questions about the complaint.

For example, Licht noted that another state legislator, then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairwoman Erin Lynch Prata — applied for a Supreme Court seat in 2020.

Gramitt explained that Ethics Commission staff concluded a revolving door provision prohibited Lynch Prata from seeking a Supreme Court seat for a full year after leaving office. But commission members voted 5-2 to reject the staff’s advice, opening the door for then-governor Gina M. Raimondo to appoint her to the Supreme Court.

Licht said Lynch Prata has since served on the Supreme Court “with distinction,” and he questioned why the Ethics Commission did not issue a complaint if it thought she had violated the ethics code. He also noted that no one sought a writ to try to remove her from office, and that the rest of the Supreme Court did not publicly question her appointment.

“Even though it’s not precedent,” Licht said of Lynch Prata’s appointment, “does it have any bearing whatsoever on this matter?”

Gramitt said, “I want to suggest that it doesn’t.”

The facts of Shekarchi’s case are different, he said, noting that Lynch Prata sought an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission while Shekarchi did not.

Also, “To say that that one case of non-prosecution means that the door is wide open for everyone else after that — that’s not how that’s not how the law works.”

Shekarchi’s lawyer, Thomas M. Dickinson, contended that Lynch Prata’s appointment is “relevant historical precedent,” and that the “silence” following her appointment is significant.

He said that since 2020, no bills have been introduced in the General Assembly to try to change or clarify the law about whether legislators must wait a year before trying to join the Supreme Court.

Read more Trump imposes 50 percent tariff on Canadian goods, citing disputes over autos, alcohol, and cheese

Supreme Court case law holds that “you can infer legislative assent from silence in certain circumstances,” Dickinson said. “Here, we could infer the Ethics Commission assenting to the way the statute was applied because they never took any steps to seek a modification.”

Also, Dickinson noted that the House and Senate voted to confirm Lynch Prata. “We certainly can’t infer that they think it’s unconstitutional,” he said.

Gramitt said courts sometimes interpret laws in a way that legislators might assent to or try to change. But he said there was nothing to interpret in Lynch Prata’s case because the Ethics Commission never issued an opinion for her — it simply voted against adopting the opinion drafted by staff.

Dickinson argued that Supreme Court justice is a constitutional office and therefore specifically exempted by law from the the “revolving door” provision. He also argued that the selection of Supreme Court justice is spelled out in the state Constitution, and that the ethics code can’t trump a “constitutionally authorized procedure” for filling a vacancy.

The legal arguments focused on an exception to the “revolving door” provision that says, “Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a state elected official from seekingor being elected for any other constitutional office.”

Gramitt argued that the exception applies to those who seek elected constitutional offices, such as governor or attorney general — not appointments to the judiciary.

Dickinson accused Gramitt of ignoring the statute’s use of the word “or.”

Shekarchi is “seeking” the constitutional office of Supreme Court justice, he said. “The revolving door exception plainly applies to him, and the prosecution’s magical and wishful attempt to replace the word ‘or’ with the entirely different word ‘and’ must be rejected,” he wrote in a legal brief.

But Gramitt told the judge there is no disagreement about the proper meaning of “or.”

“Rather,” Gramitt said in a legal brief, “the dispute between the parties concerns whether the word ‘seeking’ in the phrase ‘seeking or being elected for’ means seeking appointment,” as Shekarchi contends, or “seeking election,” as the Ethic Commission contends.

Gramitt said the Supreme Court made clear in a 1993 advisory opinion that the exception was intended to apply only to those seeking elected positions, not appointed positions.

Gramitt asked the judge to dismiss Shekarchi’s complaint and send the case back to the Ethics Commission for further proceedings.

In brief remarks after the hearing, Shekarchi said he is confident in his legal case.

Yelnosky, who filed the complaint against Shekarchi, reacted to the day’s arguments on social media.

“Notoriously difficult to predict outcomes based on argument,” Yelnosky wrote on X. “BUT I expect Judge Licht will rule for Shekarchi. The (Judicial Nominating Commission) will meet on July 28. If he does not make their list, the case could be moot. If he does, the (Supreme Court) could hear an appeal while the list is before the Governor.”

Read more Alaska wants to seize a pilot’s plane over a 6-pack of beer. The Supreme Court will hear his case.