Opinion ID: 1230380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Error of the Dissent

Text: The dissent does not take this approachquite to the contrary. The dissent would allow the mere possibility of a future popular election to permit an otherwise ineligible legislator to not only get a free ride on the horse of a powerful office, but also to grab the coveted brass ring of incumbencyall without first paying the fare of submitting to the will of the people in a popular electionand winning. Under the dissent's laissez-faire approach to the constitutional language in question, a legislator could enjoy an otherwise prohibited office for literally years, without popular approvalif an election was in some way forthcoming. [4] In short, the position that the dissent advocates would gut the constitutional ineligibility of legislators to hold offices that they have created or for which they have improved the pay.