The Rhode Island Constitution: Royal Charter and a Modern Constitutional Convention

This essay is part of a 50-state series about the nation’s constitutions. We’ve asked an expert from each state to dive into their constitution, narrate its history, identify its quirks, and summarize its most essential components for our readers.

Founded by seekers of religious freedom, Rhode Island was first governed by a 1663 Royal Charter granted by King Charles II. Rhode Island did not adopt a constitution until decades after the American Revolution ended, but in the mid-1800s the citizens of the nation’s smallest state were instrumental in pushing for the adoption of its first constitution. Then, in the 1980s, they amended it with updates including gender neutral language and ethics requirements for lawmakers. The document is notable for its protection of the surrounding waters that make Rhode Island the Ocean State.

Early History

The 1663 Royal Charter stipulated self-governance — Rhode Islanders were entitled to elect their own government and write their own laws, rather than be subject to a leader appointed by the king and to English laws. The charter’s provision for freedom of religion was the first time a monarch allowed its colonial subjects the right to practice their religion freely without government interference. It also established the General Assembly (which held its first unified meeting in 1647) as the official lawmaking body of the state.

The charter declared that the government of the colony aimed “to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained” with “a full liberty in religious concernments.” Although the charter did not have a specific provision regarding the qualification for suffrage, in practice only those who had been selected as freemen were given the right to vote. (Males in Rhode Island could become freemen by applying directly to the General Assembly or through appointment by the chief officer of their town; either path required that the individual own property.) Under the charter, the General Assembly held almost all the lawmaking power, including the power to hear and decide “all and singular suits, causes, quarrels, matters, actions and things, of what kind or nature [what]soever.”

After the American Revolution, Rhode Island, as the smallest state, was wary of ceding power to a centralized government that could be controlled by larger and more powerful states. The state did not send delegates to the constitutional convention of 1787, and it rejected 11 attempts to ratify the U.S. Constitution between September 1787 and January 1790 — gaining it the moniker “Rogue Island.” It was a full year after the federal Constitution went into effect that Rhode Island finally ratified it in May 1790. It was the last state to do so, and only after a threatened trade embargo.

As the 19th century began, the Royal Charter had not been altered much, despite profound changes in the state. In the decades following the revolution, Rhode Island’s economy industrialized, pushing the locus of industry away from rural towns that had previously supported Rhode Island’s maritime economy, including its central role in the transatlantic slave trade, and towards cities. By 1840, just 40 percent of Rhode Island’s free male population was eligible to vote, while its largest cities controlled only 30 percent of the House of Representatives. These shifting demographics meant that the state’s shrinking rural towns held outsized influence in the General Assembly and the charter, which provided the structure for this increasingly unbalanced state government, did not contain any procedures for its own amendment.

The “People” Versus the Charter

These shifts, and the discontent that resulted from them, led to demands for reform and the rise of Thomas Wilson Dorr, a young state representative from Providence who endeavored to change the system of legislative apportionment to be based on population. In 1841, Dorr and other reformers organized the “People’s Convention,” a constitutional convention under the then-radical theory of popular constituent sovereignty. The People’s Convention led to the drafting and ratification of a People’s Constitution, which extended the right to vote to white males who had resided in Rhode Island for one year regardless of whether they owned property. Consequently, during the annual elections of April 1842, Dorr was elected the “People’s governor” while charter adherents elected Samuel Ward King. The competing state governments both attempted to assume power in early May 1842, and the armed Dorr Rebellion ensued. Black Rhode Islanders supported the establishment government in exchange for certain constitutional reforms, including the abolition of slavery and limited franchise. The establishment government ultimately prevailed and Dorr fled to New Hampshire.

The events of the People’s Convention and the Dorr Rebellion ultimately led to the drafting of a new state constitution, which was ratified in November 1842 and became effective in May 1843. Rhode Island’s first constitution included a comprehensive “Declaration of Certain Constitutional Rights and Principles,” improved apportionment in the state house, and removed the property ownership requirement for voting eligibility for American-born citizens. (The requirement was left in place for naturalized citizens until 1888, however.) In 1856, in Taylor v. Place, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected the power of the General Assembly to review or reverse decisions of that court, thus paving the way for increased separation of powers and a more robust form of judicial independence.

Rhode Island hosted one full-scale constitutional convention that began in 1964, which did not result in the adoption of a new state constitution, and five limited gatherings in 1944, 1951, 1955, 1958, and 1973, which adopted minor changes to the 1843 constitution.

In 1986, however, the state convened a constitutional convention that approved 44 amendments to the 1843 constitution and integrated them into an entirely new document. The 1986 constitution, still in effect today, was rewritten to include gender neutral language, codify the creation of an ethics commission relating to local and state officials, confer the power of the budget on the governor, and implement environmental protections to safeguard Rhode Island’s natural resources and landscape, among other important advancements. The 1986 constitution also contains a provision that ties the document to the state’s independent origins, stating that “the enumeration of the foregoing rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people” and that “the rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by” the U. S. Constitution.” There has not been a convention since.

Governance

Under the Royal Charter, Rhode Island effectively had two governing bodies, a “Company” (made up of a governor, deputy governor and “Ten Assistants”), and the General Assembly (made up of the company and other freemen elected in Rhode Island’s several towns). The General Assembly held the broad powers of both the Crown and of parliament as the singular entity responsible for the creation of legislation, execution of the laws, and adjudication of disputes under those laws. That tradition of broad legislative powers continued under the 1843 constitution which explicitly stated that “the general assembly shall continue to exercise the powers [they] have heretofore exercised, unless prohibited in this constitution” (the continuing powers clause). Thus, the 1843 constitution left the general assembly with enormous power over the other two branches of government. Indeed, the legislature retained the power to elect (and remove) all judges, and to appoint officials to executive offices. The governor’s sole affirmative obligations under that constitution were to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and to temporarily fill vacancies in government offices (until the General Assembly — which only met twice per year — could address them). The assembly’s power was, as the Rhode Island Supreme Court has discussed, “plenary and unlimited, save for the textual limitations to that power that [were] specified in the Federal or State Constitutions.” Unsurprisingly, that structure left the judiciary with very little oversight of legislative enactments.

Rhode Island’s current form of government, involving three co-equal branches, resulted from political pressure, and eventually constitutional change, in the latter part of the 20th and early part of the 21st centuries, making Rhode Island one of the last states in the nation to adopt a formal separation-of-powers provision in its state constitution. Two major amendments to the constitution were responsible for that fundamental change. First, in response to what a later case described as “widespread breaches of trust, cronyism, impropriety, and other violations of ethical standards” the 1986 constitutional convention adopted a provision for the creation of the previously mentioned independent ethics commission with powers to create and adopt a code of ethics for state and local officials. Rhode Island voters codified the power of the legislature to create and charge an ethics commission in 1986. One of the commission’s initiatives was the creation of so-called revolving door regulations, which regulate the ability of former government employees and public officials to profit or benefit from their prior political contacts by restricting their employment in the period immediately following their public service.

Second, the citizens of Rhode Island formally adopted in 2004 the separation-of-powers amendments. Those amendments, “fundament[ally] change[d]” the Rhode Island Constitution by “clearly and explicitly” establishing “three separate and distinct” departments of government. These changes focused on: removing the legislature’s power to appoint members of boards, commissions, and other quasi-public entities that exercise executive power and granting that power to the governor with the advice and consent of the senate; creating three distinct departments of government; and removing the continuing powers clause. These changes confined the designated powers to each particular branch by precluding members of one branch from serving in or being elected to another branch. Moreover, the changes — particularly the removal of the continuing powers clause which had reflected the legislature’s paramount authority in the days of the charter — confined the legislature’s “plenary” power to those areas where the constitution explicitly granted it or the state supreme court had recognized it, such as its regulatory power over lotteries and its duty to provide for the state’s natural environment.

On the basis of this realignment, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, in at least one instance, has determined that proposed legislation related to the Coastal Resources Management Council — an executive agency with quasi-executive and quasi-judicial powers — violated separation-of-powers principles because it would have allowed sitting legislators to serve on that council and would have allowed the General Assembly to make appointments to that body.

Judicial Selection

The judicial selection process has also changed over time. In the early-to-mid-20th century, the legislature exercised its power over judicial selection by removing and replacing all five sitting supreme court justices following the Bloodless Revolution of 1935 (when Democrats won control of the legislature for the first time).

In the latter decades of the 20th century, Rhode Island faced several judicial scandals. As a result, in 1993, the General Assembly passed, and the governor signed, a law creating the Judicial Nominating Commission responsible for the initial screening of all lower court judges. The commission creates a short list from which the governor nominates; the state senate gives its advice and consent to nominations.

In 1994, Rhode Islanders adopted a constitutional amendment granting the governor the authority to appoint individuals to the supreme court, with advice and consent of both the house and the senate. The five justices on the Rhode Island Supreme Court serve a single term with no mandatory retirement age, making it the only state whose supreme court justices enjoy life tenure.

Two Paths to Amendment

Amending the Rhode Island Constitution begins in the halls of the state house and ends at the ballot box. Any amendment must garner majority voter approval through a ballot measure. There are two paths by which the Rhode Island Constitution can be amended: through a legislatively referred constitutional amendment or via a constitutional convention. 

Under the first path, if the amendment can gather a simple majority vote in the Rhode Island legislature (at least 38 votes in the House of Representatives and 20 votes in the Senate), it earns a spot on the statewide ballot. This process does not require the governor’s signature — once the legislature gives the green light, the amendment heads straight to the voters for approval.

The second path takes a broader approach, under which the assembly places a question on the ballot asking voters whether they want to hold a constitutional convention. If the voters say “yes,” a convention is called to consider potential revisions to the constitution. Rhode Island is one of only 14 states that ensures this question is not forgotten — at least once every 10 years, the state constitution requires that voters be asked whether they wish to convene a constitutional convention. Since 1994, however, voters have rejected each attempt to call a new convention, most recently rejecting an initiative in 2024.

In the past two decades, additional amendments to the Rhode Island Constitution have been initiated by the legislature. The most recent was in 2020, when voters approved a revision to the preamble and other parts of the constitution, including the replacement of “the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” with “The State of Rhode Island.” In the early 2000s, however, several amendments were adopted, including the separation-of-powers and ethics commission amendments, and an amendment restoring the right to vote for individuals convicted of felonies once they are discharged from a correctional facility. Rhode Island is 1 of 24 states to adopt a voting rights provision related to such rights restoration in its state constitution.

Contrasting the Rhode Island and U.S. Constitutions

From its opening words, the Rhode Island Constitution sets itself apart from the U.S. Constitution. It begins with a statement of purpose reflecting the state’s founding as a sanctuary for religious freedom for followers of Roger Williams, who were seeking relief from the rigid constraints of Puritanism in Massachusetts: “We, the people of the State of Rhode Island, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.”

In stark contrast to its federal counterpart, the constitution’s first article contains 24 affirmative statements of “the essential and unquestionable rights and principles” established and protected by the state constitution. As is typical of state constitutions, some of the individual rights provisions affirmatively grant the citizens of Rhode Island certain rights instead of restricting legislative power to abridge them. For example, Article I, Section 20 includes an affirmative right to publish thoughts subject only to the constraint that each person is “responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Similarly, the next section confers on citizens the right to assemble in a peaceable manner “for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances.” And Article I, Section 5 grants “every person” the right to “find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws” and the ability “to obtain right and justice freely.” The constitution also explicitly enunciates that Rhode Islander’s rights are “not dependent on those guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”

Despite Rhode Island’s founding as a haven of religious liberty, and Roger Williams’s personal distrust of a government-sponsored religion, neither the 1842 nor 1986 constitutions contains an “Establishment Clause” prohibiting the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Notwithstanding this omission, however, many of the 1986 constitution’s individual rights protections do closely track its federal counterpart — most obviously articles on search and seizure and on rights of the criminally accused.

Some provisions, otherwise nearly identical to those in the federal Constitution, substitute a pivotal word or modify central concepts. For example, while the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the Rhode Island Constitution’s clause omits the reference to a militia. Similarly, the search-and-seizure provision has two twists: it omits “houses” as a place to be secure from unreasonable searches and it adds a requirement that an application for a warrant be in writing. Intriguing is Rhode Island’s contrast to the federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In Rhode Island, the similar provision protects any “self-criminating evidence,” notably omitting the word “witness.” While the court has staunchly adhered to an interpretation of that provision that tracks its federal counterpart, one former justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court has opined that this difference suggests the possibility that the state constitution’s self-crimination clause may provide protections to a broader class of non-testimonial evidence than the federal Constitution.

The 186-word provision on religious liberty is strikingly different from the 16-word Free Exercise Clause. Like the U.S. Constitution, it extols “full liberty in religious concernments.” But unlike its federal counterpart, it begins with a declaration that it is designed to secure religious freedom, and further states that “no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry” nor shall they be disqualified from public office, or have their engagement in civil society curtailed as a result of their professed “opinion in matters of religion.”

Unique Provisions

Many provisions in the state’s constitution are not necessarily unique to Rhode Island but are unique to state constitutions. Article I, Section 17 guarantees “all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore.” While having no correlating section in the federal Constitution, it is similar to the protections 21 other state constitutions give the right to hunt. However, in 1911 in State v. Kofines, the state supreme court upheld a residency requirement for fishing licenses by interpreting the article to protect only the people’s collective right to a flourishing fishing industry, rather than an individual’s right to engage in that industry. Ocean State citizens’ access to the shore has been and remains a hotly contested political and economic issue. The Rhode Island Constitution also requires that all laws “should be made for the good of the whole” and requires the burdens of any law to be fairly distributed.

The constitution contains an affirmative “Right to justice” provision guaranteeing all people access to “certain remed[ies] by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which may be received in one’s person, property, or character.” Article I further grants criminal defendants a constitutional right to be presumed innocent and grants constitutional status to the right of a victim of a crime to be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity during investigations.

Notwithstanding the state constitution’s unique provisions, many have been held not to be self-executing and therefore not amenable to private causes of action, including the victims’ rights, anti-discrimination, and access to courts provisions.

Lockstep Approach to Interpretation

Whether the comparable provisions are identically worded or differ from the federal Constitution, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has consistently employed a lockstep approach to interpreting the state constitution. Lockstep applies the reasoning and result of the interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court of the federal correlate to a state right. In the small group of cases where the court has deviated, it has looked for a “principled rationale” to justify their decision to do so. For example, in State v. Benoit in 1980, the Rhode Island Supreme Court identified a principled rationale for deviating from the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, holding that police were required to obtain a warrant to search a car that had been seized and impounded. The court determined that the rationale underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to dispense with the warrant requirement in that circumstance did not honor the privacy interests underlying the state constitution’s search-and-seizure provision. Just a decade later, however, the court overruled Benoit in State v. Werner and thereby embraced an interpretation that matched the U.S. Supreme Court’s.

The state supreme court’s preference for lockstepping is also evident in its freedom-of-religion cases. In 1968’s Bowerman v. O’Connor, it relied on a U.S. Supreme Court opinion interpreting the First Amendment in holding that giving free textbooks to religious schools did not violate Article I, Section 3 of the state constitution, notwithstanding the fact that the state and federal Constitution’s protections for freedom of religion differ radically textually.

The state supreme court did on at least one occasion find a principled rationale to reach a contrary conclusion to the U.S. Supreme Court in the search-and-seizure area. In 1989’s Pimental v. Department of Transportation, the state court held that the protections under Article I, Section 6 were not “subordinated to the interests of efficient law enforcement” and therefore protected drivers in the state from non-random, systematic drunk-driving roadblocks under the theory that the Rhode Island Constitution did not allow stopping 100 cars based on the assumption that one driver may be impaired. The court reached this conclusion even where it simultaneously predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would conclude that that kind of stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In addition, in State v. Vinagro in 1981, the court relied heavily on the uniqueness that the right to jury trial “shall remain inviolate” to hold that in criminal prosecutions defendants are entitled to a jury for any matter that was triable to a petit jury at common law. In re Advisory Opinion to the Senate in 1971, the court reaffirmed the greater breadth of Article I, Section 15 over the Sixth Amendment’s right to jury to require a 12-person jury in criminal cases.

Protecting Individual Rights

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has also recently interpreted certain individual rights provisions under Article I of the state constitution. In State v. Sinapi, the court held in 2023 that real-time cell site location information was protected under the Fourth Amendment, and that Article I, Section 6 would protect that information even if it was determined not to be protected under the federal Constitution. Similarly, in State v. Brown in 2024, the court concluded that Article I provided an adequate and independent state law ground to suppress the defendant’s surreptitiously recorded conversation with his mother while in police custody, even after concluding that the Fourth Amendment also required suppression of that conversation. Finally, in 2022’s Zab v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, the court struck down the state’s civil death statute — which provided that every incarcerated person shall “be deemed to be dead in all respects,” at the time, the only one still enforced in the nation — pursuant to the right to justice and access-to-courts provisions. All three decisions are examples of the court’s state constitutional consideration in important areas of individual liberty.

In the intervening four decades since 1986, the provision in the Rhode Island Constitution that it is an independent document not reliant on interpretations of the federal Constitution, Article I, Section 24, has not featured prominently in published decisions of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Some decisions over the last five years, however, may signal the dawning of a time when the court more vigorously protects Rhode Islanders’ rights under the state constitution.

Melissa A. Long is an associate justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Barbara Hurst is Director of Pro Se Programs for the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island. She is a former appellate public defender and has taught state constitutional law at Roger Williams University Law School.

Geoffrey H. Cole is an attorney licensed in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island and serves as judicial law clerk to Justice Long.

Noa Jett and Nicole Hernandez contributed research to this article.

Suggested Citation: Melissa A. Long, et al., The Rhode Island Constitution: Royal Charter and a Modern Constitutional Convention, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (April 14, 2026),