The evidence also proves that plaintiffs were attempting to amend the Constitution to include voter initiative through the process established in Article 14, Section 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution. It was at this time that it became obvious that neither the House nor the Senate had any intention of allowing voter initiative legislation on the House or Senate Floor for a full vote by legislators whose constituents had voted for the voter initiative referendum in 1996. It was from that date that plaintiffs began to investigate altering the State Constitution by means of a Constitutional Convention. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiffs acted with due diligence. The General Assembly and the Attorney General vigorously argue that Bandoni v. State prohibits this Court from granting relief in this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs respectfully disagree.
Bandoni never held that Rhode Island Courts lack equitable power to remedy Constitutional violations. Bandoni does not never overrule O Connors v. Helfgott, Bandoni does not overrule Roch v. Garrahy. Bandoni does not overrule Pimental v. Department of Transportation , and Bandoni does not overrule Ex Parte Young . On the contrary, Bandoni cites with approval cases and treatises that have held that damage actions may not be necessary to remedy Constitutional violations specifically because equitable or other statutory remedies may be available and may provide adequate redress. Even if the General Assembly and the Attorney General are correct and Bandoni stands for the proposition that the Rhode Island judiciary was abandoning its traditional role of enforcing Constitutional rights, and that Rhode Island Courts will only enforce Constitutional rights where there is express authorization from the General Assembly to do so, in this case the General Assembly has clearly granted the judiciary the historic equitable powers necessary to grant relief in this case.