Court Opinion

ID: 9707268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:07:17.383022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:30.236617
License: Public Domain

FAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated below I respectfully disagree with the majority. It is my firm conviction not only that this court has the discretion to grant the standing of the petitioners, Floyd Edmund Webb III (Webb) and Joseph Vileno, Jr., et al. (Vile-no), to bring this appeal but that such discretion should have been exercised. The majority has fallen into grievous error by rigidly applying inapposite precedents to the unique factual circumstances of the case at bar. I shall demonstrate that a careful reading of constitutional provisions, statutes, prior Rhode Island cases, and persuasive precedents from other jurisdictions would lead inexorably to an opposite result.
Initially I turn my attention to the question of standing. Webb does not seek the office of mayor for himself, nor does he allege any entitlement to it. Webb sought *1206leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto in an attempt to block the then-mayor-elect Cianci from assuming the office of mayor of the city of Providence. Prior to Webb’s request before this court, he had requested the Attorney General of Rhode Island either to file the information himself or to authorize Webb to initiate the proceedings in the name of the Attorney General. Both requests were refused.
In the past this court has defined several different types of quo warranto proceedings. See Fargnoli v. Cianci, 121 R.I. 153, 161, 397 A.2d 68, 72 (1979). The three various quo warranto actions are as follows: quo warranto writs, informations in the nature of quo warranto, and petitions in equity in the nature of quo warranto. Id. at 160, 397 A.2d at 72. The quo war-ranto writ and the information in the nature of'quo warranto direct “an individual to show by what warrant he holds public office and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim is not well founded.” Id. at 161, 397 A.2d at 72. The writ of quo warranto has essentially been abandoned and replaced by the information in the nature of quo warranto. Id. In any event the writ and the information in the nature of quo warranto perform the same function. Id. A petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto, however, “not only ousts the respondent from office but also declares that the petitioner is the rightful holder of the office in dispute.” Id. at 162, 397 A.2d at 73.
When we apply these distinguishing features to the case at hand, it becomes clear that Webb could not have proceeded by way of a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto because he was not claiming a right to, nor was he entitled to, the office of mayor. The only means available to Webb to challenge the right of Cianci to sit as mayor of the city of Providence, therefore, was by way of an information in the nature of quo warranto. According to the majority of this court, however, such an information can only be brought by the Attorney General and cannot be brought by a private party. Because the Attorney General has, for whatever reason, refused to bring an information, Webb is without redress in this court or in any other court in this state. I cannot agree with such a result. I believe not only that it was well within the discretionary powers of this court to grant Webb leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto but that such leave should have been granted.
I am aware of this court’s past pronouncements regarding the standing of a private individual to file an information in the nature of quo warranto absent the intervention of the Attorney General. At the same time, however, I am equally cognizant of this court’s prior statements regarding the discretionary nature of standing and our liberal application of this fundamental requirement. An examination of this court’s past treatment of these issues compels me to disagree with the majority’s opinion.
The majority cites a number of cases allegedly demonstrating “our well-established rule that an information in the nature of quo warranto which seeks to vindicate a public right cannot be brought in this jurisdiction without the intervention of the attorney general.” The cases cited by the majority are as follows: Violet v. Voccola, 497 A.2d 709 (R.I.1985); Fargnoli v. Cianci, 121 R.I. 153, 397 A.2d 68 (1979); Black v. Cummings, 62 R.I. 361, 5 A.2d 858 (1939); Ney v. Whiteley, 26 R.I. 464, 59 A. 400 (1904) (per curiam); O’Brien v. Board of Aldermen of Pawtucket, 18 R.I. 113, 25 A. 914 (1892); State v. Kearn, 17 R.I. 391, 22 A. 1018 (1891) (per curiam); State v. Lane, 16 R.I. 620, 18 A. 1035 (1889); and State v. Brown, 5 R.I. 1 (1857). Because I believe that the particulars of each of the cited cases can be distinguished from the present facts, I shall address each one separately.
The O’Brien case is easily distinguished from the case before us. In O’Brien the petitioners did not seek leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto, rather they sought a writ of mandamus. Both Black and Fargnoli involved petitions in equity and are for that reason distinguishable from the present facts. The remainder of the cited cases did involve infor-mations in the nature of quo warranto. *1207Each case, however, contains elements significantly dissimilar to those we are now facing. In Violet, Kearn, Lane, and Brown the informations were all filed by the Attorney General. The courts in each of these cases were not faced with the question of what to do if the Attorney General refused to bring the information. Finally in Ney there was never any allegation that the Attorney General refused to file or was ever asked to file the information.
These cases, however distinguishable from the case at hand, are not totally without merit in helping resolve the issues before us. They are, in fact, supportive of the argument I proffer that this court could, in its discretion, grant leave to a private individual to file an information in the nature of quo warranto absent the intervention of the Attorney General despite the fact that the petitioner is asserting a “public right.” In Black this court reiterated what we had previously set forth in State v. Pawtuxet Turnpike Co., 8 R.I. 521, 523-24 (1867), that “ ‘[a]n information in the nature of quo warranto cannot be filed by a private individual without leave, which the court may, at its discretion, either grant or refuse.’ ” Black, 62 R.I. at 366, 5 A.2d at 860. In addition, this court stated the following in Brown:
“It is very true that in cases in which a private relator moves, as he may, to be permitted to use the name of the state for the purpose of inquiring by what warrant an individual holds and exercises a public office, the motion is subject to the regulated discretion of the court. The necessity, the policy, of making the inquiry, and even the position and motives of the relator in proposing it, are all matters considered by the court, in the exercise of their discretion in granting such a motion; since a court of justice will not allow the name of the state to be used, and its own time to be occupied, improperly or unnecessarily, or merely to feed the grudge of a relator who has no interest in the matter of inquiry, to the disturbance of the public peace. The discretion to allow in such a case the filing of an information of this character, is, as we apprehend, all the discretion which courts of law can, with propriety, or do, exercise, and all that cases of authority justify. When the information is filed, all the discretionary power of the court is expended; and the issues of law or fact raised by the pleadings must be tried and decided, under the law, in the same manner, and with the same strictness, as in any other case, civil or criminal.” Brown, 5 R.I. at 6.
This court has addressed the issue of standing a number of times in other contexts. In Gelch v. State Board of Elections, 482 A.2d 1204, 1207 (R.I.1984), we expressly stated that we would confer “standing liberally when matters of substantial public interest are involved.” In addition, we have “on rare occasions, overlooked the question of standing and proceeded to determine the merits of a case because of substantial public interest in having a matter resolved.” Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce v. Public Utilities Commission, 452 A.2d 931, 933 (R.I.1982). This court has said that “we shall exercise our discretion and waive * * * defects so that we can address * * * profoundly important substantive issues.” In re Advisory Opinion (Chief Justice), 507 A.2d 1316, 1319 (R.I.1986). Our exercise of discretion in such matters “is solely attributable to the constitutional and public importance of the question propounded to this court.” Id. at 1320.
The question of whether the constitution disqualifies an individual from assuming the position of mayor of the capital city of this state is indeed a profoundly important issue and one of substantial public interest. I cannot conceive of a situation that involves a greater public interest or presents a more important constitutional issue than the one we are faced with in these petitions. I believe we should have exercised our discretion and allowed Webb leave to file the information.
Perhaps I would not take such exception to the majority’s decision if the majority had at least recognized the discretionary power of this court to grant leave to Webb, despite the absence of the Attorney Gener*1208al, and then simply refused to exercise this discretion. The majority, however, chose to ignore the discretionary power this court has and instead, through its holding, effectively abolished the discretionary ability this court has possessed for over a century to grant standing in such circumstances.
In this context I can imagine a number of unsettling scenarios; the most disturbing is one in which the Attorney General is the unqualified office holder. For example, an individual is elected to and subsequently assumes the office of Attorney General. Sometime thereafter a challenge is made regarding the individual’s eligibility to serve in said office. Certainly the Attorney General in this hypothetical situation would not commence a quo warranto action against himself or herself. The Attorney General could then cite this majority’s opinion in support of an argument that no one else could bring such an action. It should be clear, therefore, why it is so imperative that this court maintain its discretionary ability to grant private petitioners leave to file informations in the nature of quo warranto when the Attorney General refuses. I believe that Webb, as a resident and a qualified elector of the city of Providence was a proper individual to bring this action. I am not alone in asserting such a point of view.
In Civil Service Commission v. Pekrul, 41 Conn.Supp. 302, 308, 571 A.2d 715, 719 (1989), the court stated, “By established case law, [the petitioner] as a * * * taxpayer, has standing to bring the quo warranto action.” In State ex rel. City of Waterbury v. Martin, 46 Conn. 479 (1878), cited as authority by the Pekrul court, the court stated that it was
“unnecessary to determine, or even consider, the question whether the city in its corporate capacity can sue for this writ; for [the petitioner] is a co-relator, alleging that he is a taxpayer in the city. As such he is interested in having the duties annexed to the several public offices recognized by the city charter performed by persons legally elected thereto, and is entitled upon this proceeding to a determination as to the right of the respondent to exercise the office which he has assumed, although no other person now claims it.” 46 Conn, at 482.
In the case of Huff v. Anderson, 212 Ga. 32, 33, 90 S.E.2d 329, 330 (1955), the court stated that “a citizen and taxpayer” has “the right to inquire into the right of the respondent to hold a public office.” The court in Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So.2d 1338 (Fla.1989), noted that “[i]n quo war-ranto proceedings seeking the enforcement of a public right the people are the real party to the action and the person bringing suit ‘need not show that he has any real or personal interest in it.’ ” Id. at 1339 (quoting State ex rel. Pooser v. Wester, 126 Fla. 49, 53, 170 So. 736, 737 (1936)). Additionally the court in Goff v. Hunt, 6 N.J. 600, 605, 80 A.2d 104, 106 (1951), wrote that “[a] taxpayer and inhabitant of the city or county subject to its municipal government is interested in the due selection of its officers and he is entitled to interpose by information in the nature of quo warranto when such officers have been illegally selected.” For cases providing additional support of this view, see Carleton v. Civil Service Commission of Bridgeport, 10 Conn.App. 209, 216-17, 522 A.2d 825, 828 (1987) (taxpayer has standing to proceed in quo warranto); Highsmith v. Clark, 245 Ga. 158, 158, 264 S.E.2d 1, 1 (1980) (citizen and taxpayer has standing in quo warran-to); Kidd v. Nelson, 213 Ga. 417, 417, 99 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1957) (citizen and taxpayer has standing in quo warranto); Demoura v. Newark, 74 N.J. Super. 49, 60, 180 A.2d 513, 519 (1962) (citizen has standing in quo warranto); and State ex rel. Barlow v. Benfield, 231 N.C. 663, 664, 58 S.E.2d 637, 637-38 (1950) (residents, qualified voters, and taxpayers have standing in quo war-ranto).
The reasons for allowing a private individual to file an information in the nature of quo warranto when the Attorney General refuses are persuasive. The Highsmith court, quoting from Churchill v. Walker, 68 Ga. 681, 684 (1882), posed the following questions:
“Are not resident citizens of a municipality interested in the offices through which the civil government of the city is *1209administered? Are they not interested in having such offices legally filled, honestly and impartially administered? These offices are created by law for the benefit and convenience of the citizens, and if any usurper should assume their duties, can redress be had only through a contestant claimant? We think not.” Hi-ghsmith, 245 Ga. at 158, 264 S.E.2d at 1.
Finally, the court in Carleton stated, “A taxpayer qualifies for standing because as such he is interested in having the duties annexed to the several public offices recognized by the city charter performed by persons legally elected or appointed thereto whether or not another person claims the office.” Carleton, 10 Conn.App. at 216, 522 A.2d at 828. In addition, the Carleton court stated:
“The legality of a public office is not determined or established by the temporary or permanent nature of the incumbent’s appointment, and its legality is subject to challenge by quo warranto during the entire period of incumbency. Because of the public’s interest in its government by legal public officers, there can be no waiver of quo warranto entitlement by inaction during the passage of time.” Id. at 216-17, 522 A.2d at 828.
Because the people of Rhode Island, and more specifically the people of the city of Providence, are entitled to a government run by constitutionally qualified individuals, I believe that Webb should have been granted leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto. Common sense dictates such a conclusion, the people of this state deserve such a result, and justice demands it.
I am aware that in some of the jurisdictions to which I have referred above, the right of private individuals to file informa-tions in the nature of quo warranto is statutory.1 The rationale I espouse, however, for allowing Webb’s petition in this instance is analogous to the rationale behind the enactment of the statutes. If an individual is unqualified to hold public office, that individual should be either removed or barred from taking office in the first place. Constitutional qualifications cannot be conferred upon an unqualified individual simply by gaining the plurality of votes in an election. I suggest that because this jurisdiction lacks a statutory provision allowing for private individuals to bring an information in the nature of quo warranto when the Attorney General refuses, then it is of utmost importance for this court to retain its essential discretionary power to grant standing.
I do not dispute the fact that jurisdictions have come to differing conclusions when faced with like situations. A review of some of the cases cited by the majority from other jurisdictions, however, yields some interesting results. In State ex rel. Inman v. Brock, 622 S.W.2d 36, 44 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 941, 102 S.Ct. 477, 70 L.Ed.2d 249 (1981), the court stated the general rule “that a private citizen, as such, cannot maintain an action complaining of wrongful acts of public officials unless such private citizen avers special interest or a special injury not common to the public generally.” The Brock court further stated, however, that an exception to this general rule is found in Bennett v. Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575 (Tenn.1975). The court in Stutts stated as follows:
“We recognize that the requirement that suits in the nature of a quo warran-to and those seeking to redress public wrongs be brought by the District Attorney General can create insurmountable problems. Public spirited citizens should not be stifled or stopped in their search for solution to public wrongs and official misconduct. * * *
“If the District Attorney General, in matters such as this, should act arbitran-' ly or capriciously or should be guilty of palpable abuse of his discretion in declining to bring such an action, or in authorizing its institution, the courts will take jurisdiction upon the relation of a *1210private citizen, in the name of the State of Tennessee. * * *
“When citizens sue to rectify a public wrong, under these circumstances, a copy of the complaint shall be served upon the District Attorney General. It shall be the duty of the trial court forthwith to conduct an in limine hearing designed to determine whether to permit plaintiffs to proceed. If it be determined that the District Attorney General’s refusal to bring the action, or to authorize the use of his name in its institution, was improper or unjustified, or that plaintiffs case is prima facie meritorious, the trial court shall permit the action to proceed.” Id. at 577.
In International Association of Fire Fighters v. City of Oakland, 174 Cal.App.3d 687, 220 Cal.Rptr. 256 (1985), another case cited by the majority, the court stated:
“[I]t has also been held that in an exceptional case the court may in its own discretion authorize a private person to proceed notwithstanding the attorney general’s refusal to institute proceedings or consent to their institution by another, and that under statute or rule of court the discretion of the attorney general is not arbitrary, but that on the contrary he is subject to the order of the court to file an information in the nature of quo war-ranto if the court deems such action in the public interest, and that on refusal of the attorney general to act a private citizen may bring such proceedings where essential to vindicate the public right.” Id. at 698, 220 Cal.Rptr. at 263 (quoting 74 C.J.S. Quo Warranto § 18 (1952)).
Finally, in State ex rel. Burk v. Thuet, 230 Minn. 365, 41 N.W.2d 585 (1950), also cited by the majority, the court stated, “The general rule of law in this state is that a private citizen has no right, except under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, to the use of quo warranto to test the title of an incumbent of a public office.” Id. at 365-66, 41 N.W.2d at 586. I state once again that I cannot conceive of a situation in which this court has faced such extraordinary or exceptional circumstances than those before us now.
I shall briefly address the issue brought out by the majority regarding Webb’s inability to proceed by way of a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto. I agree with the majority’s pronouncement that Webb is not a proper individual to bring a petition in equity. As I stated earlier, such a petition seeks to place the petitioner in office while removing the respondent. Webb does not seek the office of mayor of Providence.
Although the majority speaks at length about Webb’s inability to file a petition in equity, it fails to confront the question that naturally follows, which is, who could properly have brought such a petition in the instant case? Only three potential possibilities exist: Andrew Annaldo (Annaldo), Frederick Lippitt (Lippitt), and Joseph Pao-lino (Paolino).
I shall first look at Annaldo and Lippitt, the two candidates Cianci defeated in the November election. It is extremely questionable whether Annaldo, as a third-place finisher in a three-person race for mayor, could seriously argue that he is entitled to the office if Cianci were to be prohibited from assuming the position. It is equally questionable whether Lippitt could claim a right to the office of mayor because he only received approximately 33 percent of the total votes cast.
The final hypothetical involves Paolino, the mayor of Providence at the time of the election. Again the question must be asked, what right could Paolino assert to the office when he himself voluntarily forfeited the office by not seeking reelection and instead chose to seek the office of governor of this state? I suggest, therefore, that none of the above-mentioned individuals could have properly filed a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto because not one of them could rightfully claim entitlement to the office of mayor upon Cianci’s disqualification.
I now turn my attention to the Vileno petition and the majority’s decision to deny the requested discretionary review of the decision of the State Board of Elections to *1211certify Cianci as the mayor-elect of the city of Providence. The majority’s decision was premised upon the conclusion that the objection to Cianci’s eligibility was made too late. This conclusion was grounded upon the language of G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 17-14-13, which states that “objections shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state or of the local board, as the case may be, by four o’clock (4:00) p.m. on the next business day after the last day fixed for filing nomination papers in the appropriate office.”
I concur with the majority that the objection made by the Vileno petitioners came following the expiration of time set forth in § 17-14-13. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the belated filing of the objection bars the action altogether. I believe this court should have exercised its discretion and granted the relief the Vileno petitioners sought.
There is no question that “this court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant the writ of certiorari.” White v. White, 70 R.I. 48, 50, 36 A.2d 661, 663 (1944). In addition, the question “whether or not the writ shall issue is not a matter of right but rests in the discretion of the court.” Id. This court has stated in the past that whereas “the Legislature may limit, restrict or deny a litigant access to this court, it cannot divest this court of power to review decisions of subordinate tribunals by way of the discretionary common-law certiorari.” Hester v. Timothy, 108 R.I. 376, 383, 275 A.2d 637, 640 (1971); see In re Caldarone, 115 R.I. 316, 320, 345 A.2d 871, 873 (1975).
It is my opinion that because of the extraordinary nature of the issues involved herein, this court should have exercised its discretion and granted the relief the Vileno petitioners sought. In my treatment of the Webb petition, addressed previously in this opinion, I discuss at length the need for discretionary review in such extraordinary circumstances. In accordance with my aforementioned argument I simply cannot agree with the majority’s position that because the Vileno petitioners failed to meet a deadline imposed by the Legislature, they are now without redress. Such a conclusion makes no sense, especially when the result is that an individual who was allegedly disqualified by the constitution is allowed to remain in the office of mayor of the city of Providence free from challenge.
Although the majority concludes that petitioners lack standing to bring this action, they go on to address the merits of the case. I disagree with the majority’s interpretation and application of both G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 13-6-2 and article III, section 2, of the Rhode Island Constitution concerning Cianci. In 1984, when Cianci received a five-year sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon, § 13-6-2 was the applicable statute regarding disqualifying electors and candidates for elections. The statute included the following provision:
“Every person who shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the adult correctional institutions for a term of more than one year, for any one (1) offense, shall forever thereafter be incapable of being elected to any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state and of acting as an elector therein, unless such person be expressly restored to such privilege by act of the general assembly.”
Although the statute does not specifically refer to individuals who have received suspended sentences, it has been determined that one who receives a suspended sentence has indeed been sentenced. This court in State v. Robalewski, 96 R.I. 296, 300, 191 A.2d 148, 151 (1963) established that in accordance with G.L.1956 § 12-19-8, “A suspended sentence is one actually imposed but the execution thereof is thereafter suspended.” Therefore, Cian-ci does fall within the scope of § 13-6-2. If § 13-6-2 is in fact the operative statute, Cianci is not qualified as a candidate for elective office absent a specific act by the General Assembly restoring other privileges.
Section 13-6-2 was subsequently repealed in its entirety by the General Assembly in 1987 by P.L.1987, ch. 293, § 5 of an act relating to elections. Pursuant to G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 43-3-22, the repeal of § 13-6-2 does not terminate *1212the applicability of § 13-6-2 regarding Cianci. Section 43-3-22 provides that “[t]he repeal of any statute shall in no case affect any act done, or any right accrued, acquired, or established, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil case before the time when the repeal shall take effect.” Cianci therefore remains subject to the regulatory statute in effect at the time of sentencing and is not eligible as a candidate for election until the General Assembly passes a specific act granting him that privilege. It is only logical to view the repeal of § 13-6-2 in this manner.
Had repealing § 13-6-2 automatically restored the privileges, Cianci, as well as every other convicted felon who falls within the statute, whether currently serving a penal sentence or not, would be eligible to vote in elections as well as qualify as a candidate for elective office in the state. This clearly was not the intent of the General Assembly. In repealing § 13-6-2, the Legislature did not intend automatically to restore the privileges of “being elected to any office of honor, trust, or profit in this state and of acting as an elector” to all convicted felons. In fact the intent behind repealing the statute was clearly set forth in the Explanation by the Legislative Council of an Act Relating to Elections: “This act conforms the election laws with respect to the registration and candidacies of convicted felons who have successfully completed their sentence, probation, etc., as required by the constitutional amendment adopted in 1986. The act would take effect upon passage.” It is clear from this explanation that the Legislature intended the constitutional amendment of 1986, pertaining to art. Ill, sec. 2, of the Rhode Island Constitution, effectively to replace the prohibitions imposed by § 13-6-2 regarding those persons convicted of felonies after the amendment took effect. Assuming ar-guendo that the Legislature’s intent was to apply the constitutional amendment to those felons convicted prior to its enactment, Cianci’s status as an unqualified candidate remains unchanged.
Article III, section 2, limits the class of eligible electoral candidates as follows:
“An elector shall be disqualified as a candidate for elective or appointive state or local office or from holding such office if such elector has been convicted of or plead nolo contendere to a felony or if such elector has been convicted or plead nolo contendere to a misdemeanor resulting in a jail sentence of six months or more, either suspended or to be served. Such elector shall not, once so convicted, attain or return to any office until three years after the date of completion of such sentence and of probation or parole.”
The constitutional amendment was effective upon voter approval. The constitutional convention approved it on June 26, 1986, and the public voted in favor of the amendment on November 4, 1986.
That the amendment applies to all elections occurring subsequent to its enactment is not in dispute, nor is there any question that individuals sentenced subsequent to the approval of the amendment are bound by the three-year restriction. The controversy concerns the effect of the amendment on those individuals sentenced prior to the approval of the amendment who do not qualify as candidates for election pursuant to the three-year prohibition invoked by the amendment.
The plain language of the amendment prohibits convicted felons from presenting themselves as eligible to be candidates in any elections until three years have elapsed after the completion of their sentences. Many individuals fall into the class of persons sentenced prior to November 4, 1986, whose three years have not yet expired. Because the amendment applies specifically to individuals who receive “a jail sentence of six months or more, either suspended or to be served,” the fact that Cianci’s five-year sentence was suspended does not exclude him from the class of persons effected by the amendment. On April 24, 1984, Cianci received a five-year suspended sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon. Although Cianci’s sentence expired on April 23, 1989, in accordance with the constitutional amendment he will not be eligible to offer himself as a candidate for election until April 23, 1992. That applica*1213tion to Cianci does not create any constitutional difficulties. The application of art. Ill, sec. 2, to all future elections and inaugurations, including those involving persons who have prior felony convictions, is in fact a prospective application of the amendment. Consideration of an antecedent fact, such as a prior felony conviction, does not render the amendment retroactive.
In 1960 the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a New York statute that sought to disqualify anyone who had been convicted of a felony from holding office in any waterfront labor organization. The Court upheld the statute, reasoning that the application of the statute to individuals convicted of a felony prior to its effective date was proper. The Court went on to state that the statute was a necessary part of a “much needed scheme of regulation.” De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 1155, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109, 1120 (1960). As I shall discuss in more detail when I reach my examination of the legislative intent regarding art. Ill, sec. 2, it was enacted as part of an effort by the Legislature to regulate the qualifications of those persons holding office in Rhode Island. Accordingly disqualification of Cianci pursuant to art. Ill, sec. 2, does not render the application of the amendment unconstitutional.
It has been established that it is not necessary to look beyond the plain language of a constitutional provision to establish its meaning; therefore, as stated above, on its face, art. Ill, sec. 2, applies to Cianci. Gorham v. Robinson, 57 R.I. 1, 31-34, 186 A. 832, 837-38 (1936). However, if the meaning of a constitutional amendment is called into question, it is possible to look beyond the surface of the provision to discern the intent of the drafters. Gelck, 482 A.2d at 1217; Bailey v. Baronian, 120 R.I. 389, 391, 394 A.2d 1338, 1339 (1978); Gorham, 57 R.I. at 31-34, 186 A. at 837-38. In a situation in which a term or a clause is challenged, “[w]e must look to the history of the time and examine the state of things existing when it was framed and adopted, to ascertain the old law, the mischief and the remedy.” Bailey, 120 R.I. at 391-92, 394 A.2d at 1339.
I agree with the majority that the intent of the drafters may be determined by examining the documentation compiled during the evidentiary hearing conducted by the board of elections concerning the resolution that became art. Ill, sec. 2. When we review the transcripts of the Report of the Ethics Committee on Qualifications for Office-Persons Convicted of Crimes, as well as the transcripts of proceedings at the constitutional convention pertaining to art. Ill, sec. 2, it is apparent that the amendment’s effect on and its application to individuals convicted prior to the enactment of the amendment were considered. The ethics committee (committee) specifically addressed the potential of a problem’s arising concerning individuals who had been previously convicted. They discussed inserting language into the amendment to limit the class of convicted individuals affected to those convicted subsequent to the approval of the amendment. The committee recognized that absent such qualifying language, the provision could be interpreted as including persons serving sentences at the time of the approval of the amendment. The changes were suggested and discussed; however, they were not introduced at the constitutional convention, and consequently they were never incorporated into the amendment. As approved, art. Ill, sec. 2, refers to all individuals convicted of crimes and sentenced to six months or more whose three years have not elapsed, regardless of when the felony conviction occurred. The suggested limitation was never implemented.
The majority, although stating that “we believe it would be wrong to read anything into the failure to adopt the amendment because that amendment was never explained to or debated by the full convention,” clearly believes that the restrictive language does apply to the amendment in its final form and therefore does not apply to Cianci, who was convicted prior to the amendment’s enactment. The majority argues that failing to consider the limiting language “in no way changed the fact that the committee unanimously understood art. *1214III, sec. 2, to be prospective in effect.” In adopting this viewpoint, the majority is apparently purporting that because the language was initially adopted by the committee on ethics and no evidence of a direct challenge to said language exists, the constitutional amendment, as accepted and approved in its final form, should be read as incorporating the proposed restriction, even though no language can be found in the amendment supporting this premise. I strongly disagree. In concluding that a phrase that was obviously omitted from a constitutional amendment was merely a procedural oversight and was actually intended to be included in the amendment, the majority has gone beyond the bounds of reasonable inference. In contrast, I aver that failing to incorporate the provision into the final form of the amendment clearly reflects the intentions of the committee and the full convention not to adopt the language. Therefore, if art. Ill, sec. 2, is the effective provision, it does apply to Cianci as well as to all persons convicted prior to November 4, 1986, who fall within the class created by the amendment.
Additionally the transcripts reference the atmosphere surrounding the construction of the amendment, thereby further evidencing the motivation for the amendment and the intent of the drafters to include prior convicted individuals in the class affected by the provision. The amendment was a response to “Rhode Island’s history and current political climate.” It was intended to “send a message to the people of this state that this convention will not tolerate the low standard of politics and [business as] usual that we have in the state both in its past an[d] even now.” The amendment was clearly intended to apply to convicted felons in situations similar to Cianci’s. The committee's transcripts make reference to the amendment as the “Buddy Cianci bill.” It was an attempt to restore “the confidence of the people of the state in their government” by means of establishing a “high qualification for holding of public office.”
The amendment, in its final form, disqualifies any individual who “has been convicted or plead nolo contendere to a felony.” The constitutional convention, as well as the voters, approved this language. “Has been convicted” implies that all persons convicted prior to any election to which the amendment applies are governed by the qualifications set forth.
Since no man is completely above the law, if the amendment to art. Ill, sec. 2, does not apply to Cianci, the regulatory statute in effect at the time of Cianci’s conviction must apply to him. It would appear that if we were to consider the enactment of art. Ill, sec. 2, and the subsequent repeal of § 13-6-2 to mean, as the majority suggests, that art. Ill, sec. 2, extinguishes any and all effect § 13-6-2 may have on those felons convicted prior to the repeal of § 13-6-2, such felons are now subject to the three-year statutory waiting period imposed by the amendment. As the issue was previously addressed in this dissent, pursuant to either interpretation, Cianci does not qualify as a candidate for the 1990 mayoral election. Therefore, by deeming Cianci eligible as a candidate, the majority has effectively determined that a class of felons exists to which no electoral restrictions apply. The class created includes all those individuals sentenced to the Adult Correctional Institutions for more than one year for any one offense prior to November 4, 1986. This interpretation of the effect of the constitutional amendment is, I suggest, not only contrary to the intent of the Legislature but manifestly unreasonable as well.
Finally the application of art. Ill, sec. 2, as applied to Cianci does not render it an ex post facto law prohibited by both the Constitution of the United States and the Rhode Island Constitution. This court has held that the following types of laws fall within the ex post facto prohibition:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when *1215committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352, 1356 (R.I.1983) (quoting Colder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 385, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 650 (1798)).
It is the third of the above categories that applies to the present controversy. Therefore, in order for art. Ill, sec. 2, to be violative pursuant to the above definition, it would have to be penal in nature. In the case at bar it is clear that art. Ill, sec. 2, was not enacted for the express purpose of punishing Cianci for past activities but rather was enacted to establish qualifications for and to promote public trust in public office. As such its application is a legitimate and appropriate exercise of the state’s police power and therefore is constitutionally proper. De Veau, 363 U.S. at 160, 80 S.Ct. at 1155, 4 L.Ed.2d at 1120. Additionally the Colder court’s third category requires that the change “inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.” Colder, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) at 390, 1 L.Ed. at 650. As previously discussed, this is not the situation in the present case. At the time Cianci was convicted and sentenced, he was subject to a lifetime disqualification from holding elective office pursuant to § 13-6-2. The constitutional amendment in question has the effect of reducing that lifetime incapacity to a mere three-year waiting period, an obvious abatement from the previous penalty.
In 1983 and again in 1987 this court engaged in an examination of the purposes to be served by the ex post facto clause. In 1983 we noted the reasons for the existence of the ex post facto clause as promulgated by the United States Supreme Court. “First, legislative acts should give fair warning of their effect and allow individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed. Second, the ban on ex post facto laws is necessary to prevent lawmakers from abusing their power through arbitrary action.” Lerner, 463 A.2d at 1357 (citing Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28-29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 964, 67 L.Ed.2d 17, 23 (1981)). We then went on to conclude, “These purposes should be remembered when considering whether a law is constitutional or not under the ex post facto clause. If these goals are not in some way enhanced, a court should be most reluctant to invoke the ex post facto prohibition.” Lerner, 463 A.2d at 1357. In 1987 we went a step further and adopted an approach previously presented in a Harvard Law Review article to determine whether the unfairness characteristic was present in a given law.
“[I]t is * * * clear that the factor most often appearing in these cases is the extent to which the parties have laid reasonable reliance on the law existing at the time of the conduct whose legal consequences the retroactive statute would alter. The importance of this element is apparent when one considers that in very general terms the two major factors to be weighed in determining the validity of a retroactive statute are the strength of the public interest it serves and the unfairness created by its retroactive operation, and the reliance of the parties on preexisting law is perhaps the most accurate gauge of the latter.” Lawrence v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 523 A.2d 864, 870 (R.I.1987) (quoting Hochman, The Supreme Court and the Constitutionality of Retroactive Legislation, 73 Harv.L. Rev. 692, 727 (I960)).
There can be no doubt that the institution of qualifications for public office serves a substantial and rational public interest. The question then becomes whether Cianci relied upon the pre-existing law to such an extent to render the change, as applied to him, fundamentally unfair. Cianci, as a member of the Rhode Island bar, surely knew that his actions, which led to his conviction on April 23, 1984, constituted a felony. It is also reasonable to assume that as a lawyer Cianci knew the potential penalty for such an offense, the most lenient of which could have subjected him to § 13-6-2, providing for his lifetime disqualification from public office. It is illogical, therefore, to conclude that Cianci relied on *1216the law as it existed to guide his actions at that time. Accordingly art. Ill, sec. 2, as it applies to Cianci, is not an ex post facto law.
For the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
I now feel compelled to address the majority’s response to this dissent. I too believe that this court should be mindful of the wise sentiments expressed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The practical application of Justice Holmes’s wisdom to the facts of this case, however, is the point at which the majority and I part company. It is manifest that this court not be persuaded by the political ramifications of the “great case” before us in rendering a decision. This court should, however, always be “persuaded” by its own language and precedent. Accordingly, although the majority is correct that the ultimate holding in Black v. Cummings denies the Black petitioners the right to bring their petition, the majority apparently chooses to ignore the critical fact that the relief the Black petitioners sought was the granting of a petition in equity in the nature of quo warran-to. As already discussed within this dissent, a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto is markedly different from an information in the nature of quo war-ranto and is thus distinguishable. Furthermore, although the language relied upon by the majority does appear in Black, the following language also appears:
“ ‘An information in the nature of quo warranto cannot be filed by a private individual without leave, which the court may, at its discretion, either grant or refuse.’
“We have said enough to show that the petitioners are not entitled to a hearing on the merits as of right; and further, that they have not shown us by their petition or by the argument at the hearing that they present a case which should move us to exercise the discretion vested in the court by allowing a hearing on the merits.” Black, 62 R.I. at 366, 375, 5 A.2d at 860, 864.
It would appear, therefore, that Black can be cited to stand for both propositions and thus provides no definitive answer to the question posed by these petitions.
For the reasons already stated, I believe that this court has the discretion to grant the petitions before us.

. See generally Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. chapter 918 of title 52 (West 1960); Fla.Stat.Ann. chapter 80 of title 6 (West 1987); Ga.Code Ann. article 4 of title 9 (1982); N.J.Stat.Ann. chapter 66 of title 2A (West 1976); N.C.Gen.Stat. article 41 of chapter 1 (1983).