Opinion ID: 1095462
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Air of Unreality

Text: There is a certain air of unreality about this case. The impression is about that a strict construction of Section 109 necessitates affirmance, notwithstanding this result may in fact only be reached via an expansive reading of the key Section 109 wording, a point I understand the majority to concede. Guidelines to the exercise of our undoubted authority of judicial review of legislative enactments, guidelines established in literally hundreds of cases spanning more than a hundred years, most thoroughly entrenched in our law and most assuredly pointing to reversal as to all Appellants except Supervisor Knox, are inexplicably ignored as though they had no existence. The public perceives that Section 109 proscribes all conflicts of interest in state and local government. In truth and in fact, there are untouched by Section 109 potential public official conflicts far more inimical to the public weal than those challenged here. Indeed, the suggestion that the public coffers most need protection from the self-interest of poorly but publicly paid legislator-school teachers strains credulity. And because the conflict-of-interest label has been attached to Section 109, much of the argument for affirmance proceeds upon the value judgment that such-and-such is a conflict of interest, generic variety, notwithstanding that a fair reading and application of the rather restrictive wording of the constitution produces no illegality. Indeed, I am struck by the penchant of all  the majority and the parties  for reading into Section 109 wording that simply is not there. One may search the majority opinion in vain for a neutral, non-result oriented reading of Section 109 which when applied will yield the crazy quilt of results we announce today. Section 109 (once well expanded) is relentlessly severe when applied to the activities of legislator-public school teachers but must be balanced with the logic of realities when applied to legislators' school teacher wives. Severity qua formalistic jurisprudence returns in the case of the school teacher-supervisor payment of whose salary is traceable to discretionary local tax levies, only to give way again to practical reality regarding a school teacher-alderman where the board of aldermen was mandated to fund the school budget. The majority is quixotic and schizophrenic at once. I suggest, with deference to my colleagues, that today's decision would fare poorly under the grading pencil of persons competent in linguistics, ethics, logic and political science. It isn't very good law either.