PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Governor Carcieri Tuesday urged the General Assembly to give voters a chance to extend the state's ethics code to cover legislative votes and 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.''

In its historic and long-awaited decision, 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 state Ethics Commission found probable cause to believe Irons broke state 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 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.

With the Ethics Commission paralyzed and unable to even render advisory opinions last spring, state Rep. David Segal, D-Providence, introduced a bill bill that would extend the ethics code to state legislators, "notwithstanding'' the speech-in-debate clause.

But the bill had not made any progress -- and had not even had a hearing -- when the House went on hiatus in Saturday's early morning hours. And Murphy in an impromptu interview outside his office on Tuesday signaled little interest in moving it forward.

While the court's day-old decision is "a hot topic for today,'' he said "bottom line: every constitution in all 50 states has a speech-in-debate clause, so I mean this is something we will analyze over the summer recess...and I do believe you need an Ethics Commission. You absolutely need an Ethics Commission, but I think, in certain times, the Ethics Commission has gone so far that we've now discouraged people from running for [the] General Assembly.''

The original version of this story was posted at 3:30 p.m.