Opinion ID: 2411780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: state justification for the burden

Text: The second factor we must consider under Anderson, supra , is the state interest served by the anti-nepotism statutes. These provisions serve the Commonwealth's interest by ensuring that the system of common schools is as devoid as possible of the taint of nepotism. The General Assembly was under a constitutional mandate to establish an efficient public school system pursuant to our decision in Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., supra . In that opinion, we noted that minimal characteristics of an efficient school system, are that schools be operated with no waste, no duplication, no mismanagement, and no political influence.  Id. at 213. (Emphasis added.) Said another way, the General Assembly had discretion in determining a way to devise a system that would serve to ensure impartial administration of our schools. Removing nepotism is a legitimate state interest. This Court in Rose, supra ; Hall v. Boyd County Board of Education, 265 Ky. 500, 97 S.W.2d 38 (1936); and Letcher v. Commonwealth, Ky., 414 S.W.2d 402 (1967), recognized the importance of such legislative action.