Certainly, there is a constellation of issues which surround the question of what to do about panhandling. Two legislators have proposed “solutions” which are so over the top that the legislation would obscure this important issue. Here are the proposals and why they are the equivalent of shooting a mosquito with a howitzer.

A Republican legislator wants to make it an offense to stand in the median of a highway. I would be guilty of this crime against mankind many times over. There is a ten yard median which separates my home from my wonderful friends and neighbors across the street. For exercise I often transverse that grassy section to access their property. And, yes, I do look both ways since there is no sidewalk on my side of the trail to access a pedestrian crossover to the other side.

Still yet another Democrat legislator wants to ticket motorists who give to someone at the side of the street. This legislation is probably unconstitutional. Folks have freedom of association. Doesn’t a driver have a right to even speak to the panhandler? Doesn’t the panhandler have a right to speak? The abridgment of a First Amendment right by Big Brother looms large. I know plenty of people—again, including this potential lawbreaker—who pass out gloves, hats and scarves during the winter to somebody on the street in skimpy clothing. Such folks are very careful in timing the drop off so as to not interfere with the flow of traffic.

The legislator in question has not elucidated how she would have her legislation enforced. Would there be cops on every corner to corral the errant gift-giver? That’s a heck of an idea to take the police off the streets doing real work and having them loom large to zap somebody who wants to help somebody stay warm or fed.

Of course, there is the debate about whether hand-outs help or hurt to panhandler and whether they are truly homeless and such a discussion is healthy and can lead to well-informed solutions. But the very idea of ticketing somebody, no matter how misguided somebody may think that effort may be, is to put the Scrooges in charge of somebody else’s largesse.

Panhandling can be economically devastating to a city or state which is trying t upgrade its image. There are several constitutional ideas which assist with the problem and which make sure that the truly needy are not victimized anew. The key seems to be that the ordinance has to be content-neutral not content-based. Put another way, the law in question can’t be targeted at somebody poor with a government unwilling to help to deprive the solicitor of an opportunity to meet his/her basic needs. Statutes deemed constitutional were narrowly tailored. It would seem that an ordinance would have to be geared to the health and safety of both the panhandler and the vehicle so, for example, stepping into the street could be banned. Holding a sign asking for money has been upheld as free speech.

People of good will need to be attuned to the balancing of rights and to put as much energy into social program reform as to ragging on panhandlers. In this season, let’s try to work toward reasonable and respectful solutions.

More from the Board of Elections

Elsewhere in this newspaper the Board of Elections chairman has posted a rebuttal to my recent column. Three telephone calls on election night were made from the WPRO studio starting at 7 p.m. Two went unanswered. The third was picked up by a gentleman who said he was the janitor and that nobody was there because the staff had the day off. While I’m gratified that the chairman says there were workers there until 8 p.m., nonetheless, his response shows the tyranny of low expectations that plagues this state. Why aren’t there workers to count all the ballots after the polls close? Is it too much to ask that the candidates and the public know the results on election night because an accurate count was made before staff went home?

There were significant close races. The votes should be counted or at least the ballots impounded in those races. Why does the public have to accept that the staff is able to "rewrite" damaged ballots out of the view of the candidates themselves or process them the next day? While the chairman blithely says there was information on the secretary of state’s open meetings website the information was so generalized that a reasonable person could not find out which races required ballots to be “recreated”.

So-called damaged ballots should be read aloud and checked before interested persons from the campaign and the board of canvassers—not rewritten, since that opens the door to possible fraud. Ballots could be changed to such a degree without this oversight that a recount would never be held because a “victory” would be scored through the re-creation. At a minimum, all ballots should be accounted for at the elections board on election night, rather than have them inexplicably “discovered” post-election at another polling place as happened in the close Mattiello-Frias race.

Yes, there is room for reform at 50 Branch Avenue.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.