Providence voters are deciding Tuesday whether their city should pull its money from “countries and companies profiting from genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and prolonged military occupation,” setting up a high-stakes municipal showdown that could trigger an immediate court fight, Ocean State Media reported.
Question 7 Sets Moral Boundaries on Municipal Portfolios
Question 7 appears on the Nov. 3 ballot as a binding initiative designed to establish ethical limits on the city’s investments. While the text does not name Israel explicitly, Zach Kligler of the group Providence for Palestine stated that the intent is unmistakable. “It will absolutely send a message to Israel but also to our own government,” Kligler said. Kligler noted that a victory for the measure would make Providence the nation’s largest divesting city, as well as the first to accomplish this directly through a popular vote.
Coming up this week on Behind the Story: Providence's Ballot Question 7 brings voters into conversations about Israel and investments in the capital city. Watch Behind the Story on-demand on the free WPRI 12+ smart TV app. pic.twitter.com/1w8BodfNBy
The proposed ordinance specifically directs the city to get out of direct investments in companies found to be “complicit” in those abuses. Individual company stocks are rarely held by the $700 million municipal pension fund, which instead frequently channels its capital into index funds and other financial instruments containing diverse arrays of stocks. If approved, the ordinance directs the city to “officially and publicly ask the managers of these accounts or funds to consider adopting the above restrictions on its investments” and mandates an annual portfolio review by the city treasurer.
Political Divisions and Legal Uncertainty Over the Ordinance
The ballot initiative has deeply fractured local leadership. Mayor Brett Smiley argued that the measure breaches city charter regulations governing initiative petitions, which mandate that such proposals must neither cost taxpayers money nor disrupt the city budget balance. Smiley also predicted Providence would have to pay “hundreds of thousands of dollars in costly legal fees, instead of focusing on city services.”
In contrast, David Morales said the city can work out the details later. Maria Friedman, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition for Israel, characterized the measure as an antisemitic targeting of Israel. Friedman has threatened to sue if the measure passes.
Weighing Precedent and Financial Oversight
Legal experts remain divided on whether existing state law blocks the initiative. Legislation countering the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement was enacted by Rhode Island lawmakers in 2016 under the designation H-7736. Jared Goldstein, a constitutional law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, explained that while the statute stops the state from contracting with private parties that are boycotting Israel, it does not explicitly force municipalities to invest in companies doing business there.
Meanwhile, municipal financial oversight continues independently of the political debate. The Providence Board of Investment Commissioners recently hired a recently retired federal judge, William Smith, to conduct an independent legal analysis of the citizen petition. City Solicitor Jeffrey Dana noted that Smith’s analysis was commissioned to provide objective guidance as the retirement system portfolio stood at $677.3 million at the end of September.
As early voting concludes, polls close on Tuesday, Nov. 3, at 8 p.m., leaving the future of Providence’s investment strategy and the ensuing legal battle hanging in the balance.
Worth a look
- Alvin Tedjo wins mayoral election in Mississauga, Canada
- BJP Fields Hardeep Singh Puri for Rajya Sabha Bypoll in Madhya Pradesh
- Netanyahu’s Bloc Fails to Gain Majority in Israel Elections (archyworldys.com)
- Providence Voters to Decide on Controversial Israel Divestment Ballot Measure (world-today-news.com)
