To the editor:

An election is about to be overturned. Not because of conspiracy theories or mobs in the capitol, but as a result of antiquated language in Rhode Island's redistricting bill, scheduled to be considered next week.

Every state senator and representative is endorsed by what's called a “district committee,” and these three- to seven-member groups are (normally uncontested) elected positions. When you see a star next to a candidate's name, it's because the Republican or Democratic district committee gave their stamp of approval. In primaries, it can be a meaningful edge, often bringing support from the state party.

Buried on page 274 of the bill is a provision that would void the elections of all of these committees and allow the state party chairs to name new members. If that sounds undemocratic, well, that's because it is.

The logic is that some committee members will no longer reside within the revised district boundaries. A bit of research shows that this language has been in redistricting bills back to at least the 1980s, so this is not some scheme by party leadership to take control. It's just fundamentally laziness.

No one I've asked at the General Assembly can figure out how many of the current committee members would actually need to be replaced. To do that would require comparing the changed borders of every district with the addresses of the 415 committee members. And I know how difficult that is, because I tried to do it: I downloaded all the district committee filings from the Secretary of State's website (I asked if there was a list — there isn't) and hired a programmer to attempt scraping the member data to plot against the updated boundaries. Almost half the forms were unreadable or had no addresses. My conclusion is that nobody did the analysis, so nobody actually knows how many committee members would be affected.

And the number matters, because the General Assembly is relying on a State Supreme Court decision from 1982, Gosz v. Quatrocci, to justify their ability to void the elections. But that year, the districts changed so much that this was the “least intrusive” solution. In 2022, there is a process for remaining members of district committees to replace those who are no longer residents.

Unless the General Assembly can show that this redistricting will affect enough members to render committees incapable of reconstituting themselves, it would seem that this process fails the test established by Gosz.

So, in addition to being a very bad look in a year when many people are already mistrustful of government, the General Assembly would invite legal challenge from any sitting member of a committee replaced at the whim of a party chair.

John McDaid

65 Gormley Ave.

Portsmouth