Governor Carcieri on Tuesday urged the General Assembly to give voters a chance to extend the state’s Ethics Code to cover legislative votes and other official actions taken by Rhode Island lawmakers.

Reacting to a ruling Monday by the state Supreme Court, Carcieri urged the Assembly to pass a resolution to place a constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot to strengthen the Ethics Commission.

Carcieri said the amendment is needed “to regain confidence and trust of the people of Rhode Island.”

“I believe the intention of the voters was to hold all elected officials, including members of the House and Senate, to the same high level of ethical standards,” Carcieri said in a statement.

But House Speaker William J. Murphy was cool to the idea. In a brief interview Tuesday, Murphy, a West Warwick Democrat, said: “I don’t care what state you are talking about, you are always going to have one or two people who are going to do the wrong thing. That’s human life. But the bottom line is: I can tell you that my members who are in the House of Representatives are here for the right reason, and I am just a little cautious to make a regulation for one person.”

The Supreme Court ruled that Rhode Island legislators can be prosecuted for ethics violations involving their political activities, questionable acts on behalf of constituents or businessmen — but not for their official legislative votes or actions.

The decision marked a victory for former Senate President William V. Irons, who had been accused of voting on legislation in a way beneficial to pharmacy giant CVS while collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance commissions from Blue Cross on a health-insurance policy for CVS employees in Rhode Island.

In December 2004, the Ethics Commission found probable cause to believe Irons broke ethics laws by voting on pharmacy freedom-of-choice legislation in which he had “a substantial conflict of interest,” and that he “used his public office to obtain financial gain from CVS, his business associate.”

The Supreme Court rooted its decision in the so-called speech-in-debate clause in the Rhode Island Constitution that says no legislators “shall be questioned in any other place” regarding their official votes or actions. The intent of the clause, the court majority said, is not to protect legislators from being prosecuted for acting to benefit themselves, but to protect the public by allowing elected officials to carry out their duties without fear of prosecution.

While Senate leaders said they had not yet fully digested the court ruling, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed said: “I think we certainly have to address the issue(s) raised by the decision.”

And whatever the Supreme Court said about the Ethics Commission’s powers, Senate Majority Leader Daniel Connors said “any vote taken on the Senate or the House floor in this State House could [still] be used against you in U.S. District Court if the U.S. Attorney prosecuted you… [since] there is not, to my knowledge, a speech-and-debate exemption which would cover a state legislator’s activity in federal court.”

kgregg@projo.com