OPINION
Justice SUTTELL,
for the Court.
We are presented in this case with a question of constitutional construction concerning the home-rule provisions of the Rhode Island Constitution: Once a municipality has adopted a home-rule charter, must any change to the charter be accomplished only in accordance with the amendment procedures set forth in section 8 of article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution, or may a new charter be adopted pursuant to procedures outlined in sections 6 and 7 of article 13?
The plaintiffs, Antone Viveiros, Albert Gauthier, and Carolyn Frye, appeal from an entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Middletown (the town), frustrating their quest to replace the town’s existing charter with a new charter. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After examining the written and oral submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
I
Facts and Procedural History
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On January 8, 2007, Antone Viveiros submitted an initiative petition to the town clerk of the Town of Middletown for certification and presentment to the town council. The initiative petition, purportedly signed by 15 percent of the town’s qualified electors (those persons qualified to vote), proposed that the following questions be presented to the voters at a special or general election: (1) whether a new town charter should be adopted to replace the existing town charter and, if so, (2) who should be elected to a charter commission to frame a new town charter.
[609]*609On January 11, 2007, the town solicitor returned the petition to Mr. Viveiros with a letter maintaining that the requested procedure did not conform to article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution, which establishes home rule for the cities and towns of Rhode Island. The letter informed Mr. Viveiros that the requested procedure is available only “in a situation where a municipality seeks to adopt a charter in the first instance.”1 The town solicitor characterized the proposal as an attempt to amend the existing town charter and thus informed Mr. Viveiros that he must follow the mandate of the amendment provision of article 13.
The plaintiffs filed the instant action on February 5, 2007. They sought a declaratory judgment that article 13 of the state constitution allows the submission of Mr. Viveiros’s petition and that, pursuant to that petition, the qualified electors of the town must be allowed to vote on whether a new charter should be adopted and, if so, elect a charter commission to frame such new charter. The plaintiffs also requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the town clerk and town council to fulfill their ministerial duties in regard to the petition.
The plaintiffs and the town filed cross-motions for summary judgment in May [610]*610and June 2007, respectively. At a hearing on the motions, on August 3, 2007, the hearing justice agreed with the town that a home-rule charter could be amended, altered or revised only in the manner prescribed by the amendment provision of article 13. She disagreed with plaintiffs’ interpretation of the state constitution that the procedure for “adoption” of a home-rule charter also pertained to replacing an existing charter with a new charter. In so deciding, the hearing justice denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted the town’s motion for summary judgment. Final judgment was entered on August 20, 2007. The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal on August 28, 2007.2
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the hearing justice erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the town because the home-rule provisions of the state constitution do not distinguish between the adoption of the town’s initial charter and the adoption of any subsequent charter to replace an existing charter. The plaintiffs maintain that the words used in sections 6 and 7 of article 13 are free of ambiguity and do not limit the use of the procedures set out therein to the adoption of a city or town’s initial charter. Had the framers of the home-rule provisions intended that the mandates of sections 6 and 7 of article 13 apply only in the case of the adoption of a municipality’s initial charter, plaintiffs argue, those provisions easily could have stated as much. Additionally, plaintiffs contend that the words “amend” and “replace” have entirely different connotations: “Replace” is synonymous with “supplant” or “substitute,” while “amend” connotes a mere “alteration” of something that already exists. Therefore, plaintiffs argue, the amendment provision does not apply to a wholesale replacement charter.
The town responds that the language of the state constitution and case law envision the adoption of a municipal charter as a one-time event. It maintains, also, that plaintiffs’ action is, as a practical matter, nothing more than an attempt to amend the Middletown charter in a manner different from what is prescribed by the state constitution because “it would be virtually impossible to adopt a new charter without retaining some of the provisions of the existing charter.” The town contends, alternatively, that any change, even a total change, still must be considered an amendment.
II
Standard of Review
In matters of constitutional interpretation, this Court’s “ ‘chief purpose is to give effect to the intent of the framers.’ ” Riley v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 941 A.2d 198, 205 (R.I.2008). We “employ the well-established rule of construction that when words in the constitution are free of ambiguity, they must be given their plain, ordinary, and usually accepted meaning.” Id. (quoting City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 45 (R.I.1995)). “‘[E]very clause must be given its due force,’ ” meaning “ ‘no word or section must be assumed to have been unnecessarily used [611]*611or needlessly added.’ ” Id. “[W]e must ‘presume the language was carefully weighed and its terms imply a definite meaning.’ ” Id.
The historical context of a constitutional provision also is important in ascertaining its meaning, scope and effect. Riley, 941 A.2d at 205; see also In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 688 A.2d 288, 291 (R.I.1997) (“a page of history is worth a volume of logic”) (quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921)). Thus, this Court may properly consult extrinsic sources, including “the history of the times” and the “state of affairs as they existed” when the constitutional provision in question was adopted, as well as the proceedings of constitutional conventions. Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 45.
Ill
Discussion
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
Justice SUTTELL,
for the Court.
We are presented in this case with a question of constitutional construction concerning the home-rule provisions of the Rhode Island Constitution: Once a municipality has adopted a home-rule charter, must any change to the charter be accomplished only in accordance with the amendment procedures set forth in section 8 of article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution, or may a new charter be adopted pursuant to procedures outlined in sections 6 and 7 of article 13?
The plaintiffs, Antone Viveiros, Albert Gauthier, and Carolyn Frye, appeal from an entry of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Middletown (the town), frustrating their quest to replace the town’s existing charter with a new charter. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After examining the written and oral submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
I
Facts and Procedural History
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On January 8, 2007, Antone Viveiros submitted an initiative petition to the town clerk of the Town of Middletown for certification and presentment to the town council. The initiative petition, purportedly signed by 15 percent of the town’s qualified electors (those persons qualified to vote), proposed that the following questions be presented to the voters at a special or general election: (1) whether a new town charter should be adopted to replace the existing town charter and, if so, (2) who should be elected to a charter commission to frame a new town charter.
[609]*609On January 11, 2007, the town solicitor returned the petition to Mr. Viveiros with a letter maintaining that the requested procedure did not conform to article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution, which establishes home rule for the cities and towns of Rhode Island. The letter informed Mr. Viveiros that the requested procedure is available only “in a situation where a municipality seeks to adopt a charter in the first instance.”1 The town solicitor characterized the proposal as an attempt to amend the existing town charter and thus informed Mr. Viveiros that he must follow the mandate of the amendment provision of article 13.
The plaintiffs filed the instant action on February 5, 2007. They sought a declaratory judgment that article 13 of the state constitution allows the submission of Mr. Viveiros’s petition and that, pursuant to that petition, the qualified electors of the town must be allowed to vote on whether a new charter should be adopted and, if so, elect a charter commission to frame such new charter. The plaintiffs also requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the town clerk and town council to fulfill their ministerial duties in regard to the petition.
The plaintiffs and the town filed cross-motions for summary judgment in May [610]*610and June 2007, respectively. At a hearing on the motions, on August 3, 2007, the hearing justice agreed with the town that a home-rule charter could be amended, altered or revised only in the manner prescribed by the amendment provision of article 13. She disagreed with plaintiffs’ interpretation of the state constitution that the procedure for “adoption” of a home-rule charter also pertained to replacing an existing charter with a new charter. In so deciding, the hearing justice denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted the town’s motion for summary judgment. Final judgment was entered on August 20, 2007. The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal on August 28, 2007.2
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the hearing justice erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the town because the home-rule provisions of the state constitution do not distinguish between the adoption of the town’s initial charter and the adoption of any subsequent charter to replace an existing charter. The plaintiffs maintain that the words used in sections 6 and 7 of article 13 are free of ambiguity and do not limit the use of the procedures set out therein to the adoption of a city or town’s initial charter. Had the framers of the home-rule provisions intended that the mandates of sections 6 and 7 of article 13 apply only in the case of the adoption of a municipality’s initial charter, plaintiffs argue, those provisions easily could have stated as much. Additionally, plaintiffs contend that the words “amend” and “replace” have entirely different connotations: “Replace” is synonymous with “supplant” or “substitute,” while “amend” connotes a mere “alteration” of something that already exists. Therefore, plaintiffs argue, the amendment provision does not apply to a wholesale replacement charter.
The town responds that the language of the state constitution and case law envision the adoption of a municipal charter as a one-time event. It maintains, also, that plaintiffs’ action is, as a practical matter, nothing more than an attempt to amend the Middletown charter in a manner different from what is prescribed by the state constitution because “it would be virtually impossible to adopt a new charter without retaining some of the provisions of the existing charter.” The town contends, alternatively, that any change, even a total change, still must be considered an amendment.
II
Standard of Review
In matters of constitutional interpretation, this Court’s “ ‘chief purpose is to give effect to the intent of the framers.’ ” Riley v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 941 A.2d 198, 205 (R.I.2008). We “employ the well-established rule of construction that when words in the constitution are free of ambiguity, they must be given their plain, ordinary, and usually accepted meaning.” Id. (quoting City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 45 (R.I.1995)). “‘[E]very clause must be given its due force,’ ” meaning “ ‘no word or section must be assumed to have been unnecessarily used [611]*611or needlessly added.’ ” Id. “[W]e must ‘presume the language was carefully weighed and its terms imply a definite meaning.’ ” Id.
The historical context of a constitutional provision also is important in ascertaining its meaning, scope and effect. Riley, 941 A.2d at 205; see also In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 688 A.2d 288, 291 (R.I.1997) (“a page of history is worth a volume of logic”) (quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921)). Thus, this Court may properly consult extrinsic sources, including “the history of the times” and the “state of affairs as they existed” when the constitutional provision in question was adopted, as well as the proceedings of constitutional conventions. Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 45.
Ill
Discussion
The state constitution was amended in 1951 to grant home rule to the state’s municipalities.3 Amico’s Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899, 903 (R.I.2002); see generally Terrence P. Haas, Note, Constitutional Home Rule in Rhode Island, 11 Roger Williams U.L.Rev. 677 (2006). Traditionally, municipalities were considered mere creatures of the state and “had no inherent right to self-government.” Amico’s Inc., 789 A.2d at 903 (citing Lynch v. King, 120 R.I. 868, 876, 391 A.2d 117, 122 (1978) and City of Providence v. Moulton, 52 R.I. 236, 246, 160 A. 75, 79 (1932)). The home-rule amendment to the constitution “altered this traditional view by empowering cities and towns to legislate with regard to all local matters.” Id. at 903 (quoting Lynch, 120 R.I. at 876, 391 A.2d at 122). With the passage of the home-rule amendment, the state relinquished a portion of its legislative authority to municipalities. See R.I. Const, art. 13, sec. 1 (“It is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town in this state the right of self government in all local matters.”); R.I. Const, art. 13, sec. 2 (“Every city and town shall have the power at any time to adopt a charter, amend its charter, enact and amend local laws relating to its property, affairs and government not inconsistent with this Constitution and laws enacted by the general assembly in conformity with the powers reserved to the general assembly.”). Under this grant of authority, the town adopted a charter in 1968. See Town of Middletown Charter, Editor’s note.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the home-rule provisions of the state constitution detail the process for the adoption and amendment of a town charter. Section 6 provides for the creation of a charter commission. It states that whenever 15 percent of a municipality’s qualified electors sign and submit a petition for the adoption of a charter to the local legislative body, the legislative body must submit to the qualified electors the following question: “Shall a commission be appointed to frame a charter?” At the same time, the legislative body must provide for the election of a charter commission. The people must be given the opportunity to elect nine commissioners through an at-large election without party or political designation. Section 7 then provides that within one year of the election of a charter commis[612]*612sion, the commission shall frame and submit a charter to the municipal legislative body. The city or town’s legislative body next must provide for the publication of the new charter and submit it to the voters for approval at the next general election. Majority approval is required for the charter to become effective.
Section 8 of article 13 details the process for amending a local charter. It provides that the legislative body of a city or town may propose amendments. Those amendments are to be submitted for approval in the same manner as provided for the adoption of a charter' — meaning, that the legislative body must provide for the publication of those amendments and submit them to the voters for majority approval at the next general election, as is required in section 7.
In examining the above cited sections of article 13, we conclude that the home-rule provisions of the state constitution contemplate only one way of changing a charter when one has been adopted, and that is through the amendment process of section 8. The voter-initiated petition process is a procedure available to a city or town only for the initial adoption of a charter. We ground this conclusion in the language of the constitutional provisions and the intent of the framers of the home-rule amendment.
We read sections 6 and 7 as creating a procedure for the establishment of home rule in a city or town — a monumental break from the exclusive authority of the General Assembly. Section 6 grants a municipality the power to adopt a charter. “[Tjhis Court has consistently understood ‘adopt’ to mean ‘create,’ ‘develop,’ and ‘enact.’ ” In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 612 A.2d 1, 8 (R.I.1992). Section 6 requires that, upon the filing of an adequate petition, the legislative body of the municipality must ask the qualified electors whether “a commission be appointed to frame a charter.” (Emphasis added.) This choice of a town or city to detach itself from the top-down control of the state and engage in self-government on local matters is a one-time occurrence— a fundamental change in the form and structure of local government.4 The framers of the home-rule provisions based their constitutional amendment on the premise that a city or town only decides to employ home rule once, and remains self-governed thereafter. See generally Proceedings of the Limited Constitutional Convention of the State of Rhode Island (Evening Session, June 2, 1951) (1951 Convention Pro[613]*613ceedings); see id. at 128 (statement of William J. Thompson) (“[This amendment] allows the people to initiate home rule without seeking permission from the State Legislature * * *.”) (emphasis added).
Significantly, the framers did not mention revision, repeal or replacement of a charter — not in section 6, nor anywhere else in article 13. Rather, the framers provided only for the amendment of charters once adopted. Specifically, section 8 provides that “[t]he legislative body of any city or town may propose amendments.” (Emphasis added.) We conclude that the word “amendment” in section 8 encompasses any and all changes to a charter once adopted, even substantial change. While we have not had occasion to define the word “amend” or “amendment,” these words are commonly defined as the act of changing for the better, a correction or alteration, or the process of formally altering by modification, deletion or addition. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 57-58 (4th ed.2000); see also Webster’s II New College Dictionary 36 (2001). These definitions do not limit the word to partial changes.
Furthermore, it was clear at the 1951 Constitutional Convention that the home-rule resolution adopted was intended to “permit[ ] the governing body of any city or town alone to propose amendments.” 1951 Convention Proceedings at 131 (statement of Harold R. Smith). In fact, one delegate to the convention unsuccessfully proposed a resolution that would have allowed qualified electors to petition for amendment of a charter. See id. Instead, under article 13, as enacted, the people of a city or town who wish to propose modifications to an existing charter can act only indirectly, through their elected representatives. We understand,
“[t]he Town Council still remains answerable to the public * * * through a variety of forums. The people of the Town are able to voice their questions and concerns by petitioning the Town Council for grievances and/or attending public hearings on town matters. Most importantly, the people of the Town retain the power to take to the ballot boxes every two years and express, if necessary, their displeasure with their Town Council.” Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 417 (R.I.2002).
In a nonbinding advisory opinion, five justices of this Court declared that “ ‘[o]nce a home rule charter has been duly adopted by the qualified electors of a city or town in accordance with the provisions of article [13] of the amendments, it may be amended only as provided in said article.’ ” Opinion to the House of Representatives, 99 R.I. 472, 475, 208 A.2d 522, 523 (1965) (quoting Opinion to the House of Representatives, 79 R.I. 277, 283, 87 A.2d at 693, 697 (1952)). They explained that the General Assembly did not have the authority, after the home rule amendments, to submit automatically to the qualified electors of a city or town, every six years, the question of whether a commission should be appointed to amend, alter or revise their local charter. Id. They reasoned that this proposed act “would establish a different method for amending the charter of a municipality without following the procedure prescribed in sec. 8.” Id. Although the justices were responding to a question concerning the status of the state legislature relative to the home-ruled municipality, not with the relationship between the people and their local government, this language nonetheless indicates that the adoption of a municipal charter is a one-time event and that there is only one way a charter can be changed thereafter.5 See id.
[614]*614Accordingly, we hold that once a town or city has adopted a charter pursuant to the home rule provisions of article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution, the charter can be modified only by amendment pursuant to section 8.
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. We remand the papers in this case thereto.