
2022 RI General Assembly Open Government Rankings
See which elected officials have voted to ensure state government transparency, fair elections, and proper ethics.Summary of Our Findings
One of the more consistent stories year to year that our vote tallies uncover is the issue of groupthink, whereas legislators who do not wish to upset the applecart vote alongside their peers without much consideration for the legislation at hand. Unfortunately, groupthink resulted in a large number of legislators scoring identically, and ultimately this tactic hurt their scores considerably.
The most prominent bill in this year's session was the redistricting bill, presented in the Senate as S-2162A and in the House as H-7323A. Both Common Cause RI and the RI ACLU refused to support the bill, citing various issues including tabulation of the prison population's home district and the manner in which incumbents were seemingly allowed to choose their district lines in private meetings. Despite linings of corruption, Common Cause/ACLU opposition, and substantial coverage of the unfair process in play, just 16 of the General Assembly's 113 members voted against the redistricting bill. Because this bill carried heavy weighting in our scoring, those voting in favor of the bill scored poorly overall in this segment.
Another concerning trend this year was leadership's eagerness to send the majority of open government bills opposed by Common Cause and/or the ACLU to the floor, while blocking nearly all legislation that was supported by the two organizations. Nearly 60% of open government bills opposed by Common Cause RI were passed into law, while just 15% of open government bills supported by Common Cause RI and the RI ACLU were passed into law. With that in mind, poor scores from a majority of House members and better but still disappointing scores in the Senate for this category should not surprise voters. Because open government bills often serve to restrict members of the General Assembly, incumbents tend to view such legislation negatively. Some of these and other open government bills that were not permitted to pass this year included:
- A bill to include General Assembly elections in the auditing procedure used to ensure the poll results are accurate.
- A bill to allow eligible citizens to register to vote at any time, rather than only 30 days prior to an election.
- A bill to allow for ranked choice voting, which reduces the influences of political parties and gives more candidates a chance to win.
- A bill that would make reports of investigations conducted on police officers to be made public.
- A bill that would provide translation services for open meetings conducted by public agencies.
Overall scores lagged significantly behind prior years in the House of Representatives. Members of the House achieved an average score of just 19.9 this year vs. 43.6 in 2021. In the Senate, performance improved a bit, with this year's average score coming in at 42.2 vs. 33.2 in 2021. But the results make it clear that substantial work must be done to elect leaders and legislators who will place transparency and an open government higher on their list of priorities. It is crucial to a healthy democracy.
2022 By the Numbers
Open Government Bills Supported by CC/ACLU
Supported Bills Passed into Law
Open Government Bills Opposed by CC/ACLU
Opposed Bills Passed into Law
How We Ranked Open Government Voting Records
We evaluated the 38 open government-related bills with assigned Senate and House bill numbers in which Common Cause of Rhode Island and the RI ACLU publicly supported or opposed during the 2022 legislative year. In some instances the RI ACLU and Common Cause both list a bill on their legislative agenda. In most cases, their support or opposition is identical, but not always. Regardless, we assign the bill to the category that best matches their expertise. For an example, if a bill regarding election security was favored by Common Cause and opposed by the RI ACLU, we would only include this bill in the Open Government category because it is Common Cause's primary area of expertise, and thus a vote in favor would be a supporting position.
Members were awarded 3 points for RI Rank-designated high-priority bills that supported these organization's position, and 1 point for all other bills. Members received 0 points if they opposed their position, abstained, or were absent from the vote. If a member recused themselves due to a conflict of interest, the bill was not counted on their record. Those serving on committees that voted on an applicable bill were awarded 1 point for a vote that aligned with the CC/ACLU position, and 0 points for a vote opposing the CC/ACLU position or if they chose not to vote ("NV", or "taking a walk"). An absence or recusal from a committee vote was not counted at all.
NOTE: RI Rank is not affiliated with the RI ACLU nor Common Cause RI. These organizations are trusted for their long-standing work in fighting for the public good without regard for partisan favoritism. Based on this tracking record, RI Rank references their legislative agendas and/or lobbying records to compile the most important open government legislation from the current year's session. Both organizations produce their own legislator report cards, however they typically reflect only floor votes, enabling leadership in both chambers to dictate the bills used for the scorecard. RI Rank tallies all votes, including important committee votes, on all applicable bills to ensure the most complete picture of each legislator.
Senate Open Government and Ethics Rankings
Excellent OK Poor
# | Senator | Dist | Score |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Calkin, J | 30 | 100 |
2 | Mack, T | 6 | 78 |
2 | Mendes, C | 18 | 78 |
4 | Algiere, D | 38 | 75 |
5 | Bell, S | 5 | 70 |
6 | Paolino, T | 17 | 64 |
7 | Morgan, E | 34 | 56 |
8 | Zurier, S | 3 | 55 |
9 | de la Cruz, J | 23 | 48 |
10 | Goodwin, M | 1 | 45 |
10 | Acosta, J | 16 | 45 |
10 | Pearson, R | 19 | 45 |
10 | Sosnowski, S | 37 | 45 |
14 | Anderson, K | 31 | 44 |
15 | Cano, S | 8 | 42 |
15 | Felag, W | 10 | 42 |
15 | DiPalma, L | 12 | 42 |
15 | Rogers, G | 21 | 42 |
15 | Murray, M | 24 | 42 |
20 | Seveney, J | 11 | 38 |
21 | Ciccone, F | 7 | 33 |
21 | Kallman, M | 15 | 33 |
21 | Picard, R | 20 | 33 |
21 | Miller, J | 28 | 33 |
21 | Valverde, B | 35 | 33 |
21 | DiMario, A | 36 | 33 |
27 | Lawson, V | 14 | 30 |
27 | Lombardi, F | 26 | 30 |
27 | Gallo, H | 27 | 30 |
30 | Ruggerio, D | 4 | 29 |
31 | Raptakis, L | 33 | 28 |
32 | Burke, J | 9 | 26 |
32 | Euer, D | 13 | 26 |
32 | Coyne, C | 32 | 26 |
35 | McCaffrey, M | 29 | 25 |
36 | Lombardo, F | 25 | 22 |
37 | Quezada, A | 2 | 19 |
38 | Archambault, S | 22 | 19 |
How We Rank
Score is the cumulative total of the senator's floor and committee votes that support the Common Cause RI or RI ACLU position divided by the total number of votes the senator could have participated in (committee votes were only counted if the senator was present for the vote). We then multiply the score by 100 to create a scale from 1-100.
Senators with scores above 85 are considered "Excellent" open government and ethics advocates, scores between 60 - 84 are "OK", and scores below 60 are considered "Poor". The maximum possible score is 100. The lowest possible score is 0.
Bills Scored
Bills in bold were given extra weight by RI Rank for their importance and the number of people affected. Bills in italics appeared on the RI ACLU's legislative agenda but were more suited for the Open Government category and thus were moved from the Civil Liberties segment. Bills in red were opposed by these organizations (a "no" vote is scored positively).
S2162A, S2007A, S2118A, S2119A, S2123, S2131, S2200, S2216, S2232A, S2255, S2257, S2311, S2372, S2627, S2635, S2708, S2714, S2747A, S2557, and S2708.
House Open Government and Ethics Rankings
Excellent OK Poor
# | Representative | District | Score |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Place, D | 47 | 86 |
2 | Price, J | 39 | 71 |
2 | Roberts, S | 29 | 71 |
4 | Fenton-Fung, B | 15 | 67 |
4 | Henries, B | 64 | 67 |
6 | Morales, D | 7 | 57 |
7 | Perez, R | 13 | 50 |
7 | Quattrocchi, R | 41 | 50 |
9 | McLaughlin, J | 57 | 33 |
9 | McNamara, J | 19 | 33 |
11 | McGaw, M | 71 | 29 |
12 | Ajello, E | 1 | 28 |
13 | Knight, J | 67 | 23 |
14 | Tanzi, T | 34 | 22 |
15 | Felix, L | 61 | 20 |
16 | Shanley, E | 24 | 18 |
16 | Baginski, J | 17 | 18 |
18 | Messier, M | 62 | 17 |
18 | Shallcross Smith, M | 46 | 17 |
18 | Abney, M | 73 | 17 |
18 | Amore, G | 65 | 17 |
18 | Azzinaro, S | 37 | 17 |
18 | Biah, N | 3 | 17 |
18 | Carson, L | 75 | 17 |
18 | Cassar, L | 66 | 17 |
18 | Chippendale, M | 40 | 17 |
18 | Cortvriend, T | 72 | 17 |
18 | Diaz, G | 11 | 17 |
18 | Donovan, S | 69 | 17 |
18 | Fellela, D | 43 | 17 |
18 | Filippi, B | 36 | 17 |
18 | Giraldo, J | 56 | 17 |
18 | Handy, A | 18 | 17 |
18 | Hawkins, B | 53 | 17 |
18 | Kislak, R | 4 | 17 |
18 | Lombardi, J | 8 | 17 |
18 | Marszalkowski, A | 52 | 17 |
18 | Morgan, P | 26 | 17 |
18 | O'Brien, W | 54 | 17 |
18 | Potter, B | 16 | 17 |
18 | Ruggiero, D | 74 | 17 |
18 | Serpa, P | 27 | 17 |
18 | Slater, S | 10 | 17 |
18 | Solomon, Jr., J | 22 | 17 |
45 | Ackerman, M | 45 | 15 |
45 | Kennedy, B | 38 | 15 |
45 | Shekarchi, J | 23 | 15 |
48 | Alzate, K | 60 | 14 |
48 | Barros, J | 59 | 14 |
48 | Batista, J | 12 | 14 |
48 | Bennett, D | 20 | 14 |
48 | Caldwell, J | 30 | 14 |
48 | Casimiro, J | 31 | 14 |
48 | Edwards, J | 70 | 14 |
48 | Fogarty, K | 35 | 14 |
48 | Kazarian, K | 63 | 14 |
48 | McEntee, C | 33 | 14 |
48 | Noret, T | 25 | 14 |
48 | Speakman, J | 68 | 14 |
48 | Vella-Wilkinson, C | 21 | 14 |
48 | Williams, A | 9 | 14 |
62 | Hull, R | 6 | 13 |
62 | Newberry, B | 48 | 13 |
62 | Corvese, A | 55 | 13 |
65 | Blazejewski, C | 2 | 11 |
66 | Nardone, G | 28 | 8 |
67 | Cardillo, E | 42 | 0 |
67 | Casey, S | 50 | 0 |
67 | Costantino, G | 44 | 0 |
67 | Craven, R | 32 | 0 |
67 | Lima, C | 14 | 0 |
67 | Lima, S | 49 | 0 |
67 | Phillips, R | 51 | 0 |
67 | Ranglin-Vassell, M | 5 | 0 |
67 | Tobon, C | 58 | 0 |
How We Rank
Score is the cumulative total of the representative's floor and committee votes that support the Common Cause RI or RI ACLU position divided by the total number of votes the rep could have participated in (committee votes were only counted if the representative was present for the vote). We then multiply the score by 100 to create a scale from 1-100.
Scores above 85 are considered "Excellent", scores between 60 - 84 are "OK", and scores below 60 are considered "Poor". The maximum possible score is 100. The lowest possible score is 0.
Bills Scored
Bills in bold were given extra weight by RI Rank for their importance and the number of people affected. Bills in italics appeared on the RI ACLU's legislative agenda but were more suited for the Open Government category and thus were moved from the Civil Liberties segment. Bills in red were opposed by these organizations (a "no" vote is scored positively).
H7323A, H6601, H6602, H7100A, H7225, H7427, H7472, H7515, H7516, H7584, H7741, H7749, H7817, H7945A, H7829, H7319, H7223, and H7830.