Rhode Island Center for Law and Public Policy

This post was researched and written by our news blog writer and pro bono attorney, James Ryan McNelis, J.D., M.P.A.

A recent study has found that Rhode Island’s job base has reached the same level it held in 1987.  The real problem, however, is that the size of Rhode Island’s workforce has increased by more than 11%.  Rhode Island’s unemployment hovers at 11.8%, the nation’s fourth-worst.  The underemployment rate, which includes persons who have given up on their job search, is just under 19%.  This has left many people in Rhode Island expressing despair on the local economy.

Amongst the reasons for the local economic decline is the 40% drop in manufacturing employment over the last 10 years.  When an economy shifts from one sector to another, the workers of the former sector find their once highly valued skills have become obsolete. 

This reliance on employment in manufacturing, along with our dependence on the construction and finance sectors, makes Rhode Island particularly vulnerable to the current downturn.  “Rhode Island also experienced a bigger housing boom and had a larger share of bad mortgages than nearby states, which led to a bigger credit crunch here once the bubble burst,” said Andres Carbacho-Burgos, an economist with Moody’s Economy.com whose forecasts are used by state budget officials.

“It’s not entirely grim,” Carbacho-Burgos continued. “Right now job losses have stopped in Rhode Island. We’ve regained all the jobs we temporarily lost with the [March] flooding, and housing is just starting to pick up. We think by the end of the year Rhode Island should stop seeing job losses.  “The worst could be over - knock on wood,” he added.

Rhode Island did add 3,400 jobs from May through August, for an average of 850 a month. Still, at that pace the state wouldn’t return to the number of jobs it had in early 2007 until March 2015 - another four and a half years from now.  Even if the economy begins a quicker recovery, most economists don’t believe Rhode Island can regain its peak employment numbers until mid-2014.

In the meantime, Rhode Islanders will have to get used to tougher job searches, and lower wages in an ever increasingly competitive job market.

For More Reading:  Rhode Island Housing Double Dip

                                             RI Employment Opportunities Unchanged Since 1987

This post was researched and written by our news blog writer and pro bono attorney, James Ryan McNelis, J.D., M.P.A.

On October 4, 2010, the Supreme Court convened for a new term, and swore in a new Justice, Elena Kagan, who was confirmed by the Senate this past summer.  This next term has the prospect of seeing the Court become more ideologically divided.  On the top of the agenda are cases that will likely greatly impact individual rights.

A.    Freedom of Speech

The Supreme Court has decided to hear two cases concerning freedom of speech, the first being Snyder v. Phelps, Docket No. 09-751.  In this case, the rights of military funeral protestors will be considered.  The court will determine whether such protesters are protected by the First Amendment in their actions, or whether they are legally liable for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Freedom of Speech rights will also be at the bar when the Court hears Schwarzenegger, Gov. of California v. Entertainment Merchants, Assn., Docket No. 08-1448.  At issue is a California statute that prohibits the sale of violent video games to persons under the age of 18.  The law applies where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, that it is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and that it causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The challengers contend that this law is unconstitutional on its face, because it is too vague under the First Amendment, and the lower courts ruled in their favor, enjoining enforcement of the law. 

B.     Informational Privacy

The Supreme Court will also hear NASA v. Nelson, Docket No. 09-530.  Here, NASA, as an employer, instituted a comprehensive background investigation into the employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.  The Ninth Circuit issued an injunction prohibiting the government from (1) asking whether the employee had received counseling or treatment for drug use; and (2) asking references for “any adverse information” about the employee.  The Ninth Circuit based its decision on a constitutional right to informational privacy. The Supreme Court will need to determine whether the employee’s right of informational privacy prevents employers from such questioning.

C.     Establishment Clause

The Supreme Court will also have to revisit the line between Church and State, by hearing the case: Arizona Christian School Tuition Org., v. Winn, Docket No. 09-987.  This case was allowed to be heard while a similar Arizona case was declined, as they both concern the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit.  This tax credit permits parents to earn a full tax credit by donating money to school tuition organizations that award scholarships to students who attend private schools.  Most such organizations require that to qualify for scholarships, the student must attend a religious school.  This tax credit was challenged by Arizona taxpayers, who the Ninth Circuit ruled, had standing under the Establishment Clause.   The Supreme Court will have to consider whether such standing was appropriate; and if it is, also whether the tax credit program is constitutional.

D.    Equal Protection

In Flores-Villar v. United States, Docket No. 09-5801, whether US citizenship laws unconstitutionally discriminate on gender will be considered.   The challenger who was born in Tijuana, Mexico, has a 16-year-old American citizen as a father, which does not entitle him to US citizenship, but he would be entitled to citizenship if his mother was an American citizen.  The question presented is whether the Court’s decision in Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) that permits gender discrimination in citizenship laws on a biological basis violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

E.     Other Issues

Other issues facing the Court are a possible appeal to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell injunction and also a challenge to the Proposition 8 decision, both impacting the civil rights of the gay/lesbian community.  There also is the possibility that one of the suits challenging the Federal Healthcare Reform Law could reach the Supreme Court; but to date, all such challenges have been dismissed in their various Federal District Courts.  

Lastly, the health of Ruth Ginsburg has been a looming issue, as she has battled both pancreatic and colon cancer, and is currently 77 years old.  It is widely speculated that Justice Ginsburg would prefer to retire while a Democratic President holds office, thus it is likely she would step down before the 2012 election.

For More Reading: Supreme Court Term Offers Hot Issues and Future Hints

This post was researched and written by our news blog writer and pro bono attorney, James Ryan McNelis, J.D., M.P.A.

Last January, the US Supreme Court announced their decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), which removed campaign contribution limits from corporations and unions.  This dismantled a key component of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law, which limited such contributions (called soft money) to $1000 annually per candidate.

The impact of this reversal has been profound, on both the national and state level.  In the build up to the upcoming mid-term elections, several organizations have been accused of illegally using contributions from foreign corporate interests to influence American elections.  Meanwhile, Congress has been unable to overcome a GOP filibuster in the Senate to pass a law that would seek mandatory disclosure of who paid for each of these currently anonymous campaign advertisements.

In Rhode Island, this Supreme Court decision has allowed unions and other groups have begun to spend excessive sums to influence several State races.   As an example, the new union group Working Families Coalition raised more than $27,000 and spent most of it on direct mail campaigns and newspaper ads to defeat 5 incumbents on the Pawtucket School Committee.  David Cicilline, running to replace Rep. Patrick Kennedy, has also recently come under attack for using similarly funded ads.

In response, the Rhode Island State Board of Elections has passed regulations requiring that whenever an organization’s expenditures on campaigns exceed $100 a year, a report must be filed with the State detailing who made the expenditure, and where that money was spent.  While local critics of the US Supreme Court’s decision rejoice that the State is doing something, they maintain that their fears that the voice of the people will be lost in a tidal wave of unlimited special interest funding are still justified.

Factcheck: Chamber of Commerce and Foreign Contributions

RI Unions Win with No Limits on Political Spending

This post was researched and written by our news blog writer and pro bono attorney, James Ryan McNelis, J.D., M.P.A.

On September 29, 2010, Health Insurance Commissioner Christopher F. Koller allowed Rhode Island’s two largest health insurers to increase their rates slightly to cover the costs of new benefits mandated by the Federal Health Care Reform Law.  The rates for Blue Cross/Blue Shield and United Health will increase on an average between 0.6% and 2.25% depending upon the benefits plan and coverage.  Among the new benefits included will be no cost sharing for preventative services, coverage of dependents to age 26, and no life time limits on health care payouts.

“The expansion of required benefits under Federal Health Reform are real and come with small costs that can be estimated and compared,” Mr. Koller said. “In Rhode Island, we have a comprehensive rate oversight process to ensure these costs are fairly calculated and applied.”

The insurance companies had requested larger increases, and several plans have already had their rates raised without approval from the Health Insurance Commissioner.  Any such raises must now be rebated.

In addition to higher rates and new benefits, the Federal Health Care Reform Law has also created a new Federal Tax Credit for small businesses struggling with the costs to insure their employees.  Under the new law, large employers face a penalty if they do not provide affordable health insurance to their employees. Small businesses, however, are not subjected to any such penalties.  Instead, they receive a tax incentive to cover a portion of the cost of health insurance for their employees. 

To qualify for the incentive, the small businesses must have no more than 25 full time employees (owners not included), and those employee salaries must be less than $50,000.  Furthermore, the business must offer health insurance to all employees, and contribute at least 50 percent of the premium. 

For tax years 2010 to 2013, qualified small employers will receive a tax credit worth up to 35 percent of the amount they contribute to health insurance. The total value of the tax credit will be determined on a sliding scale. The smallest employers, with 10 or fewer employees and average earnings of $25,000 or less per employee, will receive the largest tax credits. 

 A Families USA and Small Business Majority study estimates that 3,900 Rhode Island employers will qualify for the maximum credit amount, and 82% of all small businesses in Rhode Island will be eligible for some portion of the tax credit.

Small Business Majority, a sponsor of the study, offers a calculator for employers to estimate their tax credit value.  Click here to use it. 

For More Reading:      Commissioner Koller’s Press Release;  Healthcare Reform Law;  Tax Credit Eligibility Report

This post was researched and written by our news blog writer and pro bono attorney, James Ryan McNelis, J.D., M.P.A.

On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to hear Kara Russo’s challenge to the Board of Elections ruling against her request to have either her name or Heidi Rogers name placed on the November ballot for lieutenant governor.  The Supreme Court also declined to halt the printing of the November ballots, thus eliminating the possibility of a GOP candidate for this position on the November ballots.  Ms. Rogers withdrew from the race in the hope of consolidating the vote to eliminate the position of lieutenant governor from State government.