Dozens oppose judicial appointment for Senator McCaffrey at Judicial Nominating Commission hearing
"Mr. McCaffrey has devoted his time in the state senate to systematically suppressing the reproductive rights of women..."
“I’ve been the chair for four years, and we’ve never had much of a turnout at any of our meetings, so it is very nice to see people here paying attention and just being present,” said Krystle Tadesse, Chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission on Tuesday evening. The meeting of the nine-member commission was scheduled to receive public comment on applicants for two vacant judicial appointments, Associate Judge of the Rhode Island District Court and Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Family Court.
Under normal circumstances, these hearings are pro forma: the applicants’ friends and associates deliver complimentary testimony extolling their virtues. Tuesday night was different because one of the applicants for the District Court vacancy is former State Senator Michael McCaffrey, whose legislative career is marked by votes against the LGBTQ+ community and reproductive rights.
I wrote about the issue here. On Tuesday, over two dozen people were in attendance to oppose McCaffrey’s nomination, and 11 people, including this reporter, testified against him. Many other people submitted written testimony in opposition.
The meeting lasted over four hours. Every applicant for the two positions had one or two people there to testify on their behalf, and nine applicants were under consideration for each position. It was three hours before anyone testified in opposition to an applicant.
Here’s the video, edited to only include testimony for or against Michael McCaffrey:
Two people spoke in support of Michael McCaffrey’s nomination: Alice Gibney, presiding Justice of the Superior Court, and Attorney Nicole Verdi, who used to work for McCaffrey as the Chief Legal Counsel for the Rhode Island State Senate:
Alice Gibney: Mike McCaffrey has been a man of honorable service. I have known him for many years as an attorney who’s appeared before me numerous times and as a legislator with whom I’ve met to discuss pending and impending legislation and how it might affect the Superior Court. On all occasions, Attorney McCaffrey was prepared, focused, and serious about the matter. Those of you who know him know how serious he can be. I’ve seen him in action in that capacity: serious, efficient, no wasted time, and always, without exception, he has treated everyone with respect in an almost old-school way. There’s a certain graciousness about it that is always appreciated, and he extends that to litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel, and court staff. He’s a gentleman.
At the outset of a trial, a judge cautions jurors: Don’t be judgmental until it’s time to be judgmental. Judges should adhere to the same rule, keep an open mind until all the information is in, and then be decisive because the litigants deserve that decision. Mike will do that. He has the patience and discipline to gather information and listen to those involved in the case. He’s listened to clients and constituents successfully for years, and hopefully, he will exercise that gift from the bench. I’m sure the qualities that have served him well as an attorney and legislator would serve him well on the bench, where he will continue to serve the public, as successfully as he has practiced law and served in the legislature.
Nicole Verdi: I’m honored to be here testifying in support of Michael McCaffrey, Leader, as I still call him, and his nomination to serve as a Rhode Island District Court Judge. I had the privilege of working closely with the Leader, who was the Senate Majority Leader, when I was the chief legal counsel for the Senate. Our work together gave me a firsthand view of his steady leadership, his deep understanding of both the law and the broader implications of public policy, and his unwavering commitment to fairness and integrity.
Before I speak further, I would like to acknowledge something personal. A few months ago, we lost Senate President Rogerio, someone the Leader and I loved and miss dearly. The Leader worked closely with the President for decades. They built a lasting friendship based on deep mutual respect and shared purpose. I honestly admired witnessing their friendship.
The past few months have been difficult. One thing that has given me strength, though, is knowing that I would have the privilege of testifying today in support of the Leader. The Senate President believed in the Leader. He admired his integrity, judgment, and heart, and he knew the Leader would make an exceptional judge. Honestly, we talked about it a few times.
I believe that part of the Senate President’s legacy will live on through the important work that the Leader will do on the bench if appointed and confirmed.
The Leader has an extraordinary career dedicated to public service and the legal community. He has over 30 years of legal experience practicing before many different Rhode Island courts and the Senate. He served as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as Majority Leader, but what stands out to me most, and what I want to talk to you about most, is my specific time working with the Leader.
We worked through complex issues, and I saw firsthand how he listened with respect to every single side, how carefully he considered the consequences of every bill and every decision we had to make at the Senate. I’m reminded of one specific piece of legislation aimed at protecting the state’s hospital system. It was a very difficult issue, and with some of the most difficult issues in the Senate, as you’re probably aware, there are a lot of organizations that have strong opinions and they make their opinions known, and we listen to every single opinion, and the leader met with every single organization. He listened to what they had to say, he asked questions, incorporated feedback, and I saw firsthand him make difficult decisions but enact a bill that helps Rhode Islanders today.
Another memory that sticks out to me is when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee. I saw him work in his role to try to help diversify the courts. I valued learning from him during my time in the Senate. Working with him taught me a lot about what it means to lead with patience, wisdom, and fairness.
Someone mentioned temperament. I will tell you his temperament is exactly what we should want in the District Court. He’s calm, reasonable, and always committed to doing what is right under the law. I have no doubt, and I am confident, that his years of legal experience, his public service career, his temperament, and more will make him an outstanding judge, and I’m truly honored to have been asked to testify on his behalf. I respectfully urge you to support his nomination.
The next ten people who testified were in opposition to former Senator McCaffrey:
Steve Ahlquist: I’m an independent reporter in Rhode Island covering state politics for almost 15 years. I wrote a piece opposing the nomination of Mike McCaffery to the District Court. I supplied many reasons, but the most important, in my opinion, is his steadfast opposition to LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive rights, including abortion. As a senator, as the Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, and Majority Leader, Senator McCaffrey opposed marriage equality and abortion rights.
On marriage equality, Judiciary Chair McCaffrey rewrote the bill with some of the most strident religious and conscience language in the country. This might be fine, I believe, in protecting religious beliefs and conscience, but Chair McCaffrey not only rewrote the marriage equality legislation, but he also worked with Senator Frank Ciccone in an attempt to gut the bill with a floor amendment. When this failed, he voted against it.
As a judge, the former senator may one day have cause to interpret the legislation he rewrote, opposed, and voted against. I heard from earlier testimony that judges in the District Court are in a unique position to defend individual liberties. The LGBTQ+ community should be confident that any nominee chosen by this commission will have their rights at the top of their minds.
As a Senator, McCaffery was part of a leadership team that blocked every bill to codify Roe v Wade into state law for over a decade. He was also part of a pro-life effort to pass state laws to challenge and undermine reproductive rights, successfully passing the so-called partial birth abortion ban - a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist - in 1997.
The former senator’s opposition to abortion means that were he to be in the position to rule on some aspect of the law regarding reproductive rights - I don’’t know, I’m not a lawyer - but some aspect - Rhode Islanders cannot be sure that his decision will be based on the law rather than his personal religious beliefs.
Recent and future United States Supreme Court decisions aptly demonstrate this problem. It didn’t matter what the nominees, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch, said during confirmation hearings; when push came to shove, Roe v. Wade was determined not to be settled law and quickly reversed.
During the 2013 legislative session, there was a bill to establish a special license plate with the anti-abortion language "choose life." The Senate Judiciary Committee, which Senator McCaffrey chaired, was split, and the measure did not have the votes needed to pass out of committee until Senate President Paiva-Weed joined the committee in her ex officio capacity and convinced two members of the committee to "take a walk,” taking their no votes with them. The fees to be collected by the DMV for these special plates were earmarked for CareNet, a Christian outreach ministry - basically a church - that runs pregnancy crisis centers that dispense false and misleading information to people seeking important life-altering advice about unexpected pregnancies.
Long before becoming a state, Rhode Island was where the separation of church and state was first put to practice. This foundational tenet of Rhode Island law eventually found its way into the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. As part of the Senate leadership team, Michael McCaffery was willing to see the legislative process manipulated to the profit of churches aligned with his religious beliefs. In so doing, I maintain that the former senator showed himself to be devoted more to his religion than to the principles upon which Rhode Island was founded. So I would like to make a strong appeal that he is not the person who should be nominated for this position.
Gates Callanan: I’m speaking to express my opposition to the nomination of Michael McCaffery for the position of Associate Judge of the Rhode Island District Court. My concerns stem from several key issues that disqualify him from serving in this critical role. His legislative record in particular suggests a consistent resistance to advancing civil rights and reproductive freedoms, values that are deeply tied to constitutional protections and the fair administration of justice - such as being a part of a leadership team that blocked every bill to codify Roe v. Wade into state law for over a decade and part of the pro-life nationwide efforts to pass state laws to challenge Roe v Wade by working to successfully pass the so-called partial birth abortion ban. His opposition to abortion is centered on his sincere religious beliefs, creating an uncertainty that his decisions will be based on law rather than religious and personal beliefs.
He voted against the LGBT Civil Rights bill in 1995, the sodomy law repeal in 1998, the hate Crimes Law in 1998, the transgender civil rights law in 2001, and domestic partner benefits for state employees in 2001. These past actions could compromise his ability to make impartial decisions in court and could lead to a perception of bias, undermining public trust in the judiciary. A judge must exemplify the highest ethical standards and serve as a role model for the community. This role requires an unwavering commitment to impartiality. Judicial decisions must be grounded in law, not religion or ideology. His longstanding record raises legitimate questions about whether he can remain impartial in cases involving reproductive rights or other deeply contested issues.
In conclusion, I respectfully urge you to reject Michael McCaffrey’s nomination to the Rhode Island District Court. This is not simply about one individual; it’s about the future of our judicial system and the standards we demand from those entrusted with interpreting and applying the law. We need judges who will protect the rights of all Rhode Islanders and lead with integrity, impartiality, and respect for the rule of law. The integrity of our judicial system depends on judges who demonstrate impartiality, fairness, and a clear commitment to upholding constitutional values regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. Rhode Island deserves judges who will protect the rights of all people and who will embody the highest standards of justice and public trust.
Reverend William Flug: I am a retired minister in the United Methodist Church and reside in Johnston. I arrived here a good deal early, and I’m really glad that I did because I heard many things about many candidates. Hearing about all these other folks makes me even more eager to speak with concern about Michael McCaffrey’s potential to serve on the District Court. Like others, I have researched his past votes and looked to see what kinds of organizations endorsed him. It wasn’t always easy to do because, according to the political data aggregating website, VoteSmart, Mr. McCaffrey annually declined to respond to their policy surveys during his years in the legislature and has remained out of sight in the ensuing time. But out of sight is not always out of mind, especially when what we can learn is that he was routinely endorsed by the NRA [National Rifle Association] and Rhode Island Right to Life, and in crucial votes was more deeply committed to those endorsers than to the people of this state, especially in his earlier years.
He was rated 100% by the NRA and had support from its Political Victory Fund in a time when we live in deep grief and constant terror over the epidemic of mass shootings. Mr. McCaffrey is far from our best hope for sane and responsible gun policy rulings.
As referenced already, Mr. McCaffrey voted against full rights for citizenship of the LGBTQIA+ community regarding marriage. Also, he voted against the bill that protected the rights of women in Rhode Island to choose about their lives.
Mr. McCaffrey’s track record of opposing reproductive freedom and the human rights of the queer population of Rhode Island is a profound concern to me. My church affirms those rights, and has for a long while. As a pastor, I have ministered with and to people whose daily lives contain painful choices that threaten spiritual health and family cohesion, so I am extremely concerned that Mr. McCaffrey’s record not only limits free choice and possibilities for a full life, but also reflects commitments to constituencies that themselves exploit divisions, express bigotry, and at times promote violence as a means of achieving their ends - the gun lobby, the anti-choice pressure groups, and the homo and transphobic voices who sadly often claim the right to hate in the name of Jesus, speak from deep and profound prejudice, preying upon ignorant fears for the sake of political gain.
The idea of Mr. McCaffrey joining the Rhode Island District Court deeply disturbs me. We are seeing everywhere in 2025 how ideologically driven courts are failing to stand against threats to democracy, justice, and due process promulgated by the Trump administration, thereby abetting a dangerous trend toward autocracy in the United States. Given a choice between joining that trend by nominating Mr. McCaffrey or opposing it by looking elsewhere, to this array of profoundly qualified people, I trust that this commission will act for all the people of Rhode Island and find a different nominee.
Lastly, as the proud father of a trans son, I am aware of the dignity, humanity, and decency of that community and must stand up here today and speak for them. The test of any society is how it responds to the callous targeting and strategic scapegoating of those who are the most rejected and the most disadvantaged among us, and Mr. McCaffrey does not pass that test. We deserve judges who share our values, and therefore, I urge you to reconsider this nomination and find someone who is actually fit to serve in the ways that Rhode Islanders deeply, deeply deserve.
Susan Glennon: The American people are experiencing extreme and ongoing threats to individual rights and liberties because of a corrupt, regressive, oppressive, and partisan federal Supreme Court majority. Therefore, I feel an urgency to speak out against the nomination of Michael McCaffery for Associate Judge of the Rhode Island District Court or anyone else threatening the rights and liberties of Rhode Islanders. While both liberties and rights are fundamental to individual freedoms, liberty primarily protects individuals from government overreach, while rights focus on ensuring equal treatment and protection against discrimination. Like the federal Supreme Court conservative justices, Michael McCaffery seems to hold some of the same outrageous opinions that certain groups of people, for example, women and the LGBTQ community, are somehow less deserving and not entitled to the same rights and liberties as other Americans. That is not a view shared by most Rhode Islanders in 2025.
In 2019, Michael McCaffrey voted against the Reproductive Privacy Act, which codified women’s right to make reproductive decisions without government interference.
In Rhode Island in 2025, 51% of the Rhode Island population is women, which is approximately 559,000 women, and polls and surveys show that well over 70% of all Rhode Island support reproductive rights, including abortion rights.
In 2013, Michael McCaffrey voted against same-sex marriage. The LGBTQ population comprises over 7% of Rhode Island adults in 2023. Rhode Island is considered one of the most LGBTQ friendly states in the U.S., and Rhode Islanders overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage equality by over 80%.
Michael McCaffery has shown that he is not aligned with these majority views and instead shares some of the regressive and oppressive beliefs and opinions of the conservatives on the federal Supreme Court. Fair-minded Rhode Islanders, already anxious and angry over Federal Supreme Court decisions, deserve better. Each and every Rhode Islander deserves the protections and respect of their state public servants. Michael McCaffrey has not uniformly protected and defended the rights and liberties of all Rhode Islanders equally and, therefore, should not receive any consideration at all.
I’d also like to speak out against lifetime judicial appointments. If someone who doesn’t reflect the fair-minded and inclusive values of Rhode Islanders somehow manages to secure a lifetime appointment in the judiciary, it would be most detrimental to our entire state for likely far too many years. Rhode Island is not a regressive state and should not be forced into becoming one by appointed public servants in power plays that override the views, values, and wishes of the public.
Brianne Lamont: I’ll comment quickly, as I have a puppy at home. He will be very mad if I miss bedtime.
Unsurprisingly, I’m here to oppose former State Senator of Warwick, Michael McCaffrey’s nomination for associate judge. However, as a well-educated, high-earning white woman who is married to a man, I am not opposing his nomination based on the fear of what his appointment would do to my rights. If I need healthcare, I can afford to travel to Massachusetts or to another state. I do not need to worry about my partner and my legal rights because we are both cisgender and in a heterosexual marriage. My privilege allows me not to be here tonight, but I am here because I care about the Rhode Islanders affected by someone like Michael McCaffrey.
I was raised to believe it is my duty as an American to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, even if it does not benefit me personally. We’ve all heard about McCaffrey’s track record. I will not repeat it, but that record of using religious beliefs to influence his decision-making process is abhorrent in a state founded on religious freedom. Applying personally held religious beliefs to dictate the legality of the way of life of its citizens is appalling. It goes against everything our founder, Roger Williams, stood for, and at its core is inherently unjust. It is horrifying but not wholly unsurprising that someone with so little empathy for people different than himself would be in line for a nomination for one of the more powerful legal positions in the state. It tends to be very easy to climb to the top when you can hide your violence in scripture.
Now, I may only be one voice in a sea of inconsequential constituents standing here in the hopes that I’ll be heard, but I had to try. I had to try to let it be known that we will not be quiet when we see potential for our neighbors and friends to be harmed. Where you all sit in the judicial branch is an immense place of power, and you should forever be grateful that you get to serve your fellow Rhode Islanders at such a high level. But I implore you to remember the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not just for people who look like me and think like yourselves. This right transcends your religious beliefs, and your actions have very real consequences for people. Therefore, I oppose McCaffrey’s nomination.
Dr. Nicole Meeks: I moved to Rhode Island in 2001. I earned my doctorate in 2014 at the University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy. I’ve been practicing as a community pharmacist in Rhode Island and Massachusetts for the past 11 years. My training as a healthcare professional is one of the motivating factors that brings me here today. When I took the oath of a pharmacist, I pledged to consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering as my primary concerns, as well as to promote inclusion, embrace diversity, and advocate for justice to advance health equity. I stand before you today, not with an endorsement for a specific candidate but rather with an expression of concern.
In medicine, a guiding pillar of practice is first to do no harm. That is what I ask of you as you reflect on the day’s remarks. The harm I speak of is the nomination of candidate Michael McCaffrey. Many would consider Mr. McCaffrey a Democrat in name only, as many of his values do not align with the majority of what we know of in the Democratic Party and the proud designation of Rhode Island as a blue state. His religious beliefs have deeply influenced and guided his voting record for the past three decades, where he has used his voice to oppose reproductive freedom for women, civil rights of the LGBTQ community, and marriage equality. Mr. McCaffrey has devoted his time in the state senate to systematically suppressing the reproductive rights of women.
In all other areas of medicine, from cardiovascular care to diabetes to infectious disease, religion does not enter the consideration of care. Healthcare is a scientific practice and should only be guided by evidence-based research and guidelines. Abortion is and will remain a crucial component of comprehensive care, and Mr. McCaffrey has opposed this notion for his entire career. Through the passage of the Reproductive Privacy Act in 2019 and the expanded access through crucial funding in the Equality in Abortion Care Act in 2023, Rhode Island safely codified these protections into law, despite the efforts of Mr. McCaffrey to endanger and discriminate against women. His opposition to the equality of marginalized individuals extends to the LGBTQ community as well. According to the 2024 Rhode Island Foundation report, over 54,000 Rhode Islanders self-identify as members of the LGBTQ community, which is about 6.5%. That percentage is over 16% when applied to the teenage and adolescent population, with about 3.5% reporting as transgender. Rhode Island is ranked 10th in the nation for the population of LGBTQ residents.
When Rhode Island legalized same-sex marriage in 2013, Mr. McCaffrey was predictably opposed to this. Still, his record of voting against the basic rights of the LGBTQ community goes back over 30 years.
He opposed legislation in 1995 for LGBTQ civil rights. In 1998, he opposed repealing the antiquated sodomy law. In 2001, he opposed transgender civil rights as well as domestic partner benefits for same sex couples. His discrimination against the LGBTQ community is longstanding and is out of alignment with the majority of Rhode Islanders. Mr. McCaffrey has proven that he does not view this population through a lens of equality, who deserves protection under the law. As such, he cannot be trusted to apply these protections if called upon to do so in a judicial role.
As we examine the current state of the Supreme Court of the United States, we are reminded that protections that we believe to be written in stone can be overturned through the installation of individuals with a personal devotion to an ultraconservative religious agenda. These beliefs are simply incompatible with a fair and balanced rule of law in a society that declares that all individuals are created equal and therefore deserving of equal protection and freedoms under the law.
It is also important to note that none of the laws that expanded freedom and protection for the residents of Rhode Island removed or infringed on any rights of any other individual. They were created only to make whole those who were being discriminated against. Yet Mr. McCaffrey still fought those policies at every turn. How are we to believe that his appointment as a judge would somehow change his desire to uphold the systemic inequality and oppression of so many people? If by some turn he is eventually granted a lifetime appointment to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the regressive and harmful beliefs Mr. McCaffrey lives by would have immediate and lifelong impact on the lives of the people over whom he presides. By appointing an individual who has demonstrated time and time again that he does not believe in the basic equality or civil rights of women and the LGBTQ community, Rhode Island would suffer under the abusive power of discrimination in action. While we continue to see our federal rights erode under the current administration, it’s more important than ever for states to create lasting equality and protection for their citizens by rejecting the regressive religious agenda in favor of an inclusive, diverse, and sustainable judicial system that represents and protects people from all walks of life for generations to come.
Sydney Montstream-Quas: Tonight, I’m speaking to you about my objection to the nomination of Michael McCaffrey for Associate Judge of the Rhode Island District Court. As co-founder and former board chair of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, I’ve testified annually since 2013 in front of the Senate and House judiciary committees to support gun violence prevention bills. When former Senator McCaffrey was a member and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, testifying as a family survivor of gun violence was often intimidating in front of him.
I question his objectivity regarding lifesaving gun violence prevention bills based on his reactions and interactions in multiple hearings with me, as well as my colleagues. I have a masters in public health, so public health is important to me, and obviously, gun violence is a terrible public health issue we are confronting. Still, I’m also concerned about other public health and social justice issues.
As the mom of a non-binary adult child, I’m concerned about McCaffrey’s actions to limit LGBTQ rights, including marriage equality and many of the other things that people ahead of me spoke about. His track record to limit abortion is also very concerning for Rhode Islander’s reproductive health and rights. Both of these rights are being threatened on a federal level, as we all know, so we must ensure we recognize Rhode Island’s LGBTQ and reproductive rights that protect Rhode Islanders. Will he weaken those protections, or will he stand strong in what already exists in Rhode Island? We deserve judges who respect all Rhode Islanders and treat them with respect.
Paul Pasaba: I’m a math teacher in Pawtucket. I also coordinate my school’s gender and sexuality alliance, or GSA. I lead GSA, first and foremost, as an effort in suicide prevention and harm reduction because LGBTQ+ youth are at a much higher risk of suicide than their peers. My primary objective is that my students make it through the difficulties of adolescence to happy and fulfilled adult lives.
I’m here today to speak about former Senator Michael McCaffrey’s record on LGBTQ issues. I moved to Rhode Island in the nineties. For more than half of my time residing in this state, Mr. McCaffrey has actively fought against my rights as a gay man and those of my LGBTQ brothers and sisters. He has supported discriminatory political practices that put queer youth at risk. In 1995, Michael McCaffrey voted against the LGBTQ civil rights bill that offered equal protections in employment, housing, and access to public accommodations. In 1998, he voted against the repeal of sodomy laws used to selectively criminalize gay and lesbian people. That same year, he voted against hate crime legislation that recognized the pernicious nature of bias-motivated crimes. In 2001, Mr. McCaffrey voted against expanding civil rights protections to people based on gender identity and expression. That same year, he voted against providing health benefits to the domestic partners of state employees. This decision affected my life personally, as my partner relied on my health benefits between jobs. Would my public school’s health plan have offered this option without the 2001 law passed against Mr. McCaffrey’s wishes? I don’t know.
Throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, Mr. McCaffrey was instrumental in delaying marriage equality. Even as the political push for marriage equality became too strong to resist, Mr. McCaffrey advocated for versions of the legislation that would’ve overturned earlier, non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. As late as 2013, he co-sponsored legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. When the final marriage equality bill came to a vote that year, he voted against it. Due to efforts like his, Rhode Island was the last New England state to achieve marriage equality, when we could have been one of the first in the nation.
Later in his tenure, Mr. McCaffrey did vote for some LGBTQ protections, but only when their passage was politically inevitable. He has been compelled by the shifting culture into a position of tolerance. Mr. McCaffrey tolerates people like me, our right to marry, and our right to live free from criminal prosecution, but if Rhode Island’s political climate were to change, I fear that his tolerance would evaporate into renewed efforts to strip away our rights.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Today, transgender and gender diverse people face battles for recognition, rights, and dignity that echo past struggles faced by gay and lesbian people. They’re scapegoated and demonized in the ways we once were. While Mr. McCaffrey stepped away from the state senate before much of the recent anti-trans legislation proposed in Rhode Island, his voting history suggests his support for the trans community is conditional at best. He’s not leading in defense of the most marginalized; he’s only compelled by political expediency to a position of tolerance. As a District Court judge, Mr. McCaffrey would adjudicate cases involving housing and employment protections for LGBTQ people, protections he never supported legislatively. He would be responsible for making sure that transgender people received equal protection under the law despite the fact that he expressly opposed their recognition as a protected class. For these reasons, I have serious reservations about giving him this honor and responsibility.
My concerns deepen when I consider what he might do as a Rhode Island Supreme Court justice, a position for which a district judgeship is a clear stepping stone. What rulings would Justice McCaffrey make on transgender people’s access to gender affirming care or on trans youth playing on sports teams aligned with their gender? Would he follow anti-science federal directives to restrict identification documents or bathroom access for trans residents? Would Justice McCaffery, emboldened by Trump’s anti-science executive order on gender, decide to rule in ways that threaten a trans person’s ability to get proper identification? Would he support overturning the Rhode Island non-discrimination protections that, once again, he historically opposed in multiple forms? Would he give an interpretation of Rhode Island’s marriage equality laws that undermines the rights of people like me to marry? For my community, these questions are too pressing to ignore. The answers found within Mr. McCaffrey’s senate record do not inspire confidence. For these reasons, I urge the Judicial Nominating Committee to exclude Michael McCaffrey from its shortlist of nominees to fill the vacant associate judge seat of the Rhode Island District Court.
Joanne Rich: I live on the east side of Providence. I use she/they pronouns and I have known that I’m bisexual since I was 13. I also have a disability - bipolar disorder type two. This does not make me crazy or my testimony less valid. What it does mean is that, at the moment, I am having a depressive episode, which pretty much completely robs me of my energy. I feel like I am swimming through peanut butter. Now, this is not specifically relevant to the reason I’m here to share my objection to Michael J McCaffrey’s nomination for Associate Judge of the Rhode Island District Court, except to say that the mental, physical, and emotional effort that it has taken me to write this testimony and come share it has been enormous. I’m doing it because who our judges are is that important.
My career was as an educator in schools in New York, Rhode Island, Amsterdam, and the Caribbean - schools for kids who are rich, poor, and from dozens of different countries. In some of these schools, I was an advisor for the GSA, what used to be called the Gay Straight Alliance and now more often the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, and what I can tell you is that in every school where I worked, there were LGBTQ+ students, queer and trans people, and who, I can’t believe that this still needs saying, have always existed and always will, because we are born this way. People who have chromosomal differences or intersex genitals have always existed, no matter what Donald Trump says. It’s science, and judges can’t change science. What judges can do is make life unbearable for LGBTQ+ youth and adults, and the damage to them and their families can be catastrophic.
Consider the effect on the family of one of my dear friends when he committed suicide during his first year of college because of homophobia. To this day, LGBTQ+ youth take their lives at hugely disproportional rates because of harassment, homophobia, and now federal policy. Rhode Island is still one of the safer places in our country to be LGBTQ+, and it needs to stay that way.
Rhode Island has already decided the kind of state it wants to be: where abortion is safe and available, and where women’s health matters because abortion is healthcare and you can judge that by the women dying in red states because they cannot get medically necessary abortions when very much wanted pregnancies go awry.
Rhode Island has already decided what kind of state it wants to be: a state where you can marry who you love. Michael McCaffrey worked very hard against reproductive rights and marriage equality, justifying these efforts using strident religious language during his time as a state senator. This is a direct contradiction of Roger Williams’ original premise for Rhode Island.
A person who does not support the basic value of this state’s founding does not belong in her judiciary. He is out of sync. The majority of Rhode Island have made abundantly clear that Rhode Island must remain a safe haven where bodily freedom means something, especially now that the Trump Administration continues to veer into autocracy.
I remember during the pandemic when some people felt that their bodily freedom was being encroached upon because they were required to wear a mask or get vaccinated. Well imagine instead being a teenager required to give birth to your rapist’s baby. Even if Mr. McCaffrey should say that he would not seek to overturn previous precedent around abortion and marriage equality, I would not trust that. We have plenty of evidence lately of nominees changing their conscience once they find themselves in positions of power. His record on these issues speaks for itself.
In conclusion, there are many other people that you can choose from, including women and people of color, to fill the available position. My heart is mine to give to whomever I want in marriage. My daughter’s body is hers to determine whether it will ever produce a baby. Decisions about the hormones you take or the surgeries you have are between you and your doctor, and our judges should adhere to the separation of religion and state that underlies the founding of Rhode Island.
Heidi Toppel: Unlike most of those who appeared before you earlier, I am not a member of the judicial system in Rhode Island. I am a member of the public, a current resident of West Warwick, and a former resident of Warwick and South Kingstown. I came to Rhode Island in 1990. I’m a retired CPA and a tax attorney. I’m a numbers person. I serve as a member of the Board of Directors of The Womxn Project, and I serve as its treasurer. The Womxn Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization that promotes bodily freedom for all through lobbying, direct action, and organizing for the advancement and protection of reproductive freedom, gender equality, and LGBTQ rights policy, specifically at the Rhode Island municipal and state levels.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on candidate Michael McCaffrey. Briefly, I strongly oppose his nomination. Mr. McCaffrey has a long and storied career. You’ve heard from many of us tonight his actions as a legislator in Rhode Island. His personal beliefs are likely to interfere with his obligation to exercise his duties as a judge, as they did during his tenure as a Rhode Island senator.
His beliefs about abortion rights and marriage equality make him an imperfect candidate for the district court position. As a Rhode Island senator, he opposed marriage equality and abortion rights. On marriage equality, he revised the bill with some of the most declarative religious language in the country. Mr. McCaffrey needs to be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is a separation between church and state. Our country is not a theocracy. We are a democracy with three co-equal branches of government.
The Constitution is not a suggestion. It is the bedrock of our laws and individual protections to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This state was founded in 1636 by Roger Williams partly on the principles of soul freedom and the separation of church and state. I attended the church gathered by Roger Williams in 1638 as the First Baptist Church in America. Former Senator McCaffrey was part of the leadership team that blocked every bill to codify Roe v Wade into state law for more than 10 years. He was also part of the pro-life nationwide efforts to pass state laws to challenge Roe v. Wade by working to pass the partial birth abortion law in Rhode Island.
He cannot be allowed to impose his personal religious beliefs on judicial proceedings, no matter how lauded he may be by the local Catholic Diocese for those beliefs.
Mr. McCaffrey provided important input into Rhode Island’s marriage equality bill, which he ultimately voted against enacting. Former Senator McCaffrey might one day be called upon to interpret the laws affecting the LGBTQIA community. If he were to be confirmed as a judge, Mr. McCaffrey’s words, that he wrote then, might cause him to roll back protection for same sex couples. Can we count on him to recuse himself in those matters? I doubt it.
We now have laws in Rhode Island that regard individual rights as superior to religious edicts. I trust these are settled laws, but we can’t be sure that Mr. McCaffrey’s decisions would be based purely on law rather than religious beliefs, no matter what he states. We saw this with the Supreme Court appointments of nominees Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch during their hearings. They said it was stare decisis, that Roe v Wade was settled law.
Well, it wasn’t. We just celebrated the third anniversary of the overturning of that. We do not elect judges in Rhode Island. It’s a rather opaque process. When I told some of my friends I would be appearing before you, they said, "I always wondered how judges get appointed in Rhode Island." It’s not a known process. It’s not understood. I’m not saying it’s secret, but it’s not a known process.
The committee is an integral part of the process of selecting judges, and it’s a lifetime appointment. Mr. McCaffrey should not be on that list of candidates proffered by this committee. I’ve heard that selecting a candidate was a tough job. It might be easier if you just took his name off the list and did not put this anti-LGBT abodilyfreedom person in a position of influence.
Jennifer Trachman: I’ve lived in Warren for about 30 years and have no legal background. Quite a few people have already spoken, much more eloquently than I can and for the same reasons, but here I go. Thanks for all you guys do for the larger cause of justice in our state and for this thoughtful public process, which allows for the presentation of specific concerns that could have a bearing on how the judicial system serves us all as individuals.
These testimonials and discussions should not be about who a candidate is outside of the courtroom. They’re all clearly good people with successful careers, community connections, families, and partners, and they’ve been willing to work the long hours required to achieve so much. Everyone on the list of nominees is conversant with the law, has experience that could help them adjudicate cases before the court, and understands the unique role of a judge presiding over the district court.
However, for candidates with a public paper trail, that information must be considered when evaluating their appropriateness for a role in the Rhode Island District Court. A few legal professionals have mentioned the “interpretation of the spaces between the law.” What I have learned tonight has made me glad that I can participate in this process.
I’m here to oppose the nomination of Mr. Michael J McCaffrey to the District Court. I believe that his judgeship would be impacted by the personal beliefs demonstrated by his previous record of service to Rhode Island. The district court hears domestic cases, including cases of domestic abuse, landlord-tenant disputes, and individual property rights. The district court hears thousands of cases annually, necessitating a fast pace and rapid delivery of judgments. The District Court is also known as the People’s Court. There is no jury. Many cases are decided by summary judgments. Many cases are self-represented, which I learned tonight is called pro se.
The legal facts of the case may be clear, but in the District Court format, the interpretation of those facts can be contingent on personal beliefs; in this way, outcomes may be at least partly determined by jurisprudence. Mr. McCaffrey’s history of public service illustrates how his personal beliefs are biased toward public service. As a senator, as we’ve already heard, he opposed marriage equality and abortion rights.
He rewrote the marriage equality bill with some of the most strident religious language in the country. As a judge, he may one day be able to interpret the legislation he wrote. His interpretation of the words he wrote might allow him to roll back protections for same sex couples or the LGBTQ+ community. He was instrumental in blocking every bill to codify Roe v Wade in Rhode Island for over a decade. As you also heard, he participated in nationwide efforts to challenge Roe v. Wade.
Many speakers have addressed the importance of respecting the people before the court. How can a judge respect a person who may have made life choices that they do not respect? Mr. McCaffrey will be in a position to rule on aspects of the law regarding reproductive rights, domestic disputes between same-sex couples, and landlord-tenant arguments where the renter is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, among others.
How can Rhode Islanders be sure that his decisions will be based on the law rather than his documented personal and religious beliefs? Although plaintiffs and defendants can appeal to the Rhode Island Superior Court, the significant costs involved in these filings and proceedings will likely preclude petitioners from this opportunity. The district court’s mandate is to balance the scales of justice equally, the powerful and the powerless. Our judiciary, particularly the People’s Court, must be dedicated to protecting the legal rights of those with less political power due to their race, ethnicity, economic status, gender, or sexual orientation. The judgment in a case must not be based on or prejudiced by presumed moral authority, and the nomination process should be independent of who the candidates know in the current or past administrations. The judges take an oath to be impartial in the application of the law.
However, no one can be truly impartial when their personal beliefs, evidenced so strongly by their past service, may be at the core of a decision. Based on my research, you have so many excellent options that I know the position can be in good hands without Mr. McCaffrey. Thanks for being here so late so that the voices of the people can be appropriately heard and the tenets of our democratic society can be upheld.
It’s really inspiring, I have to say, to see this many people dedicated to getting it right and feeling like they can talk to you during that process.
The next phase of the process is on Wednesday, July 16, at 5:30 pm in Conference Room 2A of the Powers Building across the street from the State House. There will be no public comment, but each of the 18 applicants will answer questions from the JNC members.
Thanks Steve for shining a bright light on this shady process and particularly on McCaffrey’s ideological voting record. I’m sure your efforts significantly increased the attention to this usually rote process.
And yet, we all know he will be summarily confirmed.