PROVIDENCE -- The state Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning on whether the governor has a right to poll public opinion using nonbinding ballot referenda.

The question is urgent: Wednesday is the deadline for getting that portion of the ballot to the printer without incurring added cost, according to the secretary of state's office.

Governor Carcieri initially sought to put two questions on this year's ballot: One about voter initiative and the other about caps on increases in taxes and spending.

When the General Assembly signaled intent to strip the governor of his right to place such advisory questions on the ballot -- a right the Assembly gave the governor in 1978 -- Carcieri quickly submitted his questions before the Assembly could act.

Both chambers voted in May to deny the governor that power. Carcieri vetoed the bill, but both chambers overrode the veto in June.

Lawyers for the Assembly endeavored to block the questions, contending the lawmakers' action applied to the questions Carcieri had already submitted, because the ballot had not yet been finalized. The governor's lawyers accepted the premise that future governors would not be able to place advisory questions on the ballot but sought a court ruling to allow the two questions already submitted to appear this year.

Last month, Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Fortunato surprised everyone with a decision that went beyond those two questions. Fortunato ruled that the Assembly's action would apply to questions already submitted -- but that the governor didn't need the Assembly's permission to get such questions on the ballot in the first place.

"Neither of this state's political branches, which of course means the executive and the legislature, should enjoy more prerogative than the other in consulting through the vehicle of questions with the sovereign people," Fortunato said. "It is, after all, the people who are sovereign."

Fortunato's two-part ruling favored the General Assembly with one part and the governor with the other. Carcieri doesn't want a precedent saying the Assembly's action applies retroactively, and the Assembly leadership doesn't want a precedent saying the governor has a constitutional right to put anything he wants on the ballot as long as it isn't binding.

Each side is appealing one part of the ruling, and that's what will be heard at 9:30 this morning at the Licht Judicial Complex, 250 Benefit St.

The hearing is shaping up to sound like a civics lesson, with the lawmakers' lawyers taking issue with Fortunato's characterization of Rhode Island's system of government. "Rhode Island operates by representative democracy, not participatory democracy," John A. "Terry" MacFadyen wrote in the House and Senate brief.

MacFadyen quoted James Madison, saying that when Rhode Island residents approved the state Constitution they chose a republican form of government "premised upon the fact that the people cannot speak in mass, and the right to choose a representative is every citizens' portion of sovereign power."

The leader of the House Republican caucus, Minority Leader Robert A. Watson, R-East Greenwich, sought and won amicus curiae, or friend of the court, status as an interested party.

Watson's lawyer, James P. Marusak, filed a brief arguing that Rhode Island's system of government should not favor the legislative over the other two branches.

Marusak, too, quoted President Madison: "The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and draining all power into its impetuous vortex."

The lawmakers who favored taking away the governor's ballot-question power said they were only implementing the separation-of-powers concept voters approved in 2004.

Those on the other side called the move a power grab motivated by bitterness over the clout the legislative leadership lost when separation of powers passed.

egudrais@projo.com / (401) 277-7045