good morning your honor stethem cd on behalf of the appellant's this case is about five municipal employees who in for cases were reelected to municipal office and who the state by legislation want compel to resign their employment as a condition of holding the restrictions placed on the candidates here are unlike those in resigning to run statutes and that the restrictions occur subsequent to and indeed because of the choice of the voters were if that if they were headed were permitted to run for office and they and they didn't want to would they then have to s yes in the briefs that's clear there would be two salaries in most in all but one case they are significantly lower for the council position than they are for the law enforcement or in one case water department position the the right to assume office the candidates submit to the court is derivative of the fundamental right to vote and there is a good authority from the united states supreme court for their pro first and most significantly and bullock versus carter from one nine hundred seventy two which you noted that the rights of voters and candidates do not lend themselves to need separation and that laws that affect candidates always have at least some theoretical corella to fact and is the notion that these people are going to be going to have the two salaries and they're going to have two jobs they're going to continue in their in their between their their interests as legislators and their duties as a civil servant there is your honor but no more of a conflict than any other president o municipality elected to munis of any other what i'm sorry resident of a municipality elected to municipal office everyone who's elected to municipal offices subject to the ordinances that the municipal council passe owners within the municipality have to obtain a business license from the municipality property owners in the me and i don't understand the relevance to my question up the relevance your honor is that there is always a conflict financial or otherwise and the district court its focus on the nonfinancial conflicts are too nebulous every property owner in some cases every resident of as they're not but these property owners and residents are not exercising legal authority whereas if you have a civil servant who is also a legislator as legislator as legislator he may try to alter his duties his wages would have us as a civil servant  and a civil servant might try to and also legislature try to get benefits for civil servants so that his other salary will be even larger ultimately approved by the municipal council the conflict of interest exists just as much there but this state would not be justified or it wouldn't be practical in the south part of two branches of government the plaintiffs in this case yes in the cases of the city councilman yes in the town councils that distinction doesn't exist that council has both legislative and executive authority ok when it that they have a compound it more but i think i do anyway what you're suggesting by way of conflict but it's a whole different level if you've got the ability to vote on your own salary you got it will be to abolish your office i mean you know more market distinction but actually while we're talking about the common voter this was the decision of the voters to put these people in office who will survive so could the president run for the senate be well a federal level now one on the same point well separation and says look i'm the president that's an executive post but i also want to participate in legislative so i want to be a senator and if you don't let me be a senator here stifling my ability to influence policy by from a by congress i understand that your honor but the federal analogy is a poor one because there's a develop body of federal case law which does not apply to these municipal office i don't understand the logical difference you say the first amendment authorizes all of this overriding any statute so why wouldn't that also be be true by a president who runs who wants to run for the senate again that would not be true because of the separate constitutional provisions that you know it's the same first amendment same first yes at a federal level but the federal constitution also provides for a separation of powers that well can afford a cost of tuition do then a city constitution can but the state constitutional issues are not before this court here issued in that case has enabled the councilman to hold their offices while these issues are resolved but i don't see the difference between the state and federal level so far as a first amendment right to hold public office and also to be a legislator to hold executive offices as judge pointed out but also the alleged plan well the distinction comes because it's the choice of the voters within the municipalit problematic well if that issue came up in the voters indeed did indeed elect a president and senator you would be interesting to watch how that litigation that i'm sure would ensue would play out but in this case i don't see the i'm correct under federal law you can't even run to hold the office unless you resign from the office or you can hold the office unless you resign from that but you should regard that as a violation of the first a t i do not regard that as a violation of the first amendment because how is it different from this case i can't under existing case law argue that i would if there were if i didn't have the spire of case law to argue  it's different from this case because here we have no prohibition on running for office and the voters have made a decision there's a terrible conflict of interest the protected activity and there'd be safeguards illustrate and narrowly tailored means by which the state can achieve the same and as opposed to the ham handed approach of just abrogating the may have please the court it is well established that indiana could pass a law requiring the plaintiffs to resign their position to run for any elected office and thereby prevent them from assuming any elected office the statute here is less onerous than that and therefore also constitutional this morning i'll address three issues first well settled resigned to run statutes control in this case to the state has a strong interest in preventing self dealing and the appearance of impropriety and corruption and third because there's no fundamental right there's no equal protection violation first as to the the well settled on resigned to run president anyone who could possibly assume elected office or assert any right to do so must first be able to be a candidate for that office  the district court here correctly found that any right to assume office flows from the right to be a candidate and in brazil bush years clements mitchell letter carriers all these cases hold that the government may restrict its employees from running for office and and in so doing those governments the federal government and state governments in those cases have prevented their employees from assuming office and so this this settled law applies directly in this case because the right to assume office is subsumed in the right to run for office because indiana could root restrict any of its employees from assuming any elected office in the first place you may also constitutionally enforce a lesser less onerous burden of requiring individuals preventing individuals from assuming office in the local government unit in which they're employed and the statutes here are less onerous then resigned to runs the statutes for both the candidates and the voters first as to the candidates it only restricts their ability to assume office within the governmental unit in which they're employed so for instance a state police could still be on the town council  their their primary contests and so if they had lived in a resigned to run status state they would be out of both their their employment and the elected position but here it's less onerous on the candidates because they're they're permitted to to take that risk not face the risk of losing both both positions the statutes are also less onerous on the voters here the voters are given an additional opportunity to do vote for these people that may have may have substantial backgrounds and local public service they're still given the opportunity to vote for them and those candidates are given the opportunity to run and then they're faced with the decision the decision the the reasonable decision to either assume office as the voters wanted them to or continue in their employment and here as has been noted by the court the state has many strong interests and and that the plaintiffs conceded that the state has compelling interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of production and one of the main ones spoken of today has been this financial self dealing with the prevention of police officers from being able to establish their own  salaries city and town councils are required by any our law to pass specific ordinances which establish the salaries of individual employees the the safeguards suggested by the other side are general audit safeguards and and controls of the total budget but what we're talking about here the legislation we're talking about here at city and town council levels are the individual salaries of the employees and an aside from the money interest there also interests that have to do with the chain of command the procedures for discipline and that this is a direct employee employee employer employee relationship where the city in town council has control over the conditions of employment and not only these these direct but also the interest in and preventing the appearance of impropriety here they have an interest in preventing the appearance of impropriety for both the employer the city and town council but also especially for the police service for the fire service while any suggestion regarding city council and say an independent contractor the state has less of an interest that the public trust an independent contractor but the state absolutely has a very strong interest that the citizens trust that the police force and the city councillors are not that there is not self dealing and in that regard as the equal protection here the plaintiffs have not identified any suspect class there is not a fundamental right this court in parker v lie and said that the right to run for or hold office is not a fundamental right brazil or sheers clement's letter carriers all show that it's  t a violation of equal protection to prevent a government employee from from seeking and and assuming office so under these well established under this well established case law say that if you run for if you're a public employee and you run for office you know only get one salary based on arguments i don't see that there would be unconstitutional what about the resign to run laws those are not appropriate analogies and i wanted why you might want to break them into two categories first we have the hatch act and little hatch act cases those are based on concern over partisan political activity as affecting the representative nature of government here the honor in the case of brazil bush years in the resigned to run statutes the decision of the voters is not as directly impacted as here in other words in those cases the issue is whether the candidate can get to the ballot with having to resign here the voters have made their decision and now the burden is placed upon the candidate as selected by the voters ok well thank you very much thank you