Dueling lawyers squared off Monday in Kent County Superior Court on the question of whether the state “revolving door” law prohibits former House Speaker Joe Shekarchi from seeking a vacant post on the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Representing Shekarchi, lawyer Thomas Dickinson argued an exemption from the ethics law applies when a state elected official seeks or is elected to an office created by the state Constitution, such as the Supreme Court.
Jason Gramitt, executive director of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, took the opposing view, contending that Shekarchi is required by law to wait one year from leaving the General Assembly before seeking a Supreme Court position.
Shekachi stepped down as speaker in May to pursue the court vacancy.
Judge Richard Licht peppered Dickinson and Gramitt with questions.
Licht said he expects to make his decision in the case by Monday afternoon. That’s a day before the state Judicial Nominating Commission – which narrows the field of judicial applicants – is scheduled to hold a meeting.
Gov. Dan McKee has yet to say whether he will nominate Shekarchi for the Supreme Court, but the former speaker is widely considered to have an inside track.
The “revolving door” law was adopted in response to a series of court scandals in the 1980s and 1990s.
Licht predicted the case will spark an appeal to the state Supreme Court regardless of how he decides it.
The judge could potentially return the case to the Ethics Commission, or, barring a legal appeal, smooth the path for Shekarchi’s effort to land on the Supreme Court.
In June, the commission voted to look into a complaint against Shekarchi. That process was put on hold when the former speaker went to court.
Gramitt maintained that since voters created the Ethics Commission in 1986, courts have upheld that the commission’s rules have the upper hand if they clash with laws created by the General Assembly.
For Shekarchi, Dickinson invoked the example of how former Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Erin Lynch Prata moved directly from the legislature to a Supreme Court post in 2020, calling it “a historic precedent.” He cited how even lawmakers who voted against her confirmation made no attempt to clarify the “revolving door” law through legislation.
Gramitt said the Lynch Prata case was different, for example, since she sought an advisory opinion from the Ethics Commission. The commission did not issue a formal opinion, so the case did not create precedent.
“To say that one case of non-prosecution means that the door is wide open for everyone else after that, that’s not how the law works,” he said.
Among those attending the hearing were Michael Yelnosky, the former Roger Williams Law School dean who filed the initial ethics complaint against Shekarchi, and longtime former Common Cause of Rhode Island head H. Philip West Jr., who has argued against Shekarchi’s pursuit of the court post.
In brief remarks to reporters outside court, Shekarchi said he thinks he has a strong case.
