Opinion ID: 1095462
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The View After the Majority's Reading of Section 109

Text: The majority unmistakably holds that Section 109 prohibits any public school teacher's service in the legislature, suggesting that there is a rational purpose (never identified) behind such a reading. The only conceivable basis for such a view is that public school teacher-legislators are somehow in a position to pad their pockets at the expense of the public coffers, an evil which insofar as the present record reflects we have never experienced, nor could we so long as Mississippi's public school teachers remain the lowest paid in the nation and the school teacher-legislators are paid on the same basis as all others. Be all that as it may. Consider how irrational is a constitutional scheme guarding the public interest against self-dealing legislators which has its principal impact upon one of the lowest paid and, from the vantage point of pecuniary self-interest, least attractive professions in our society. Lawyers serve in our legislature in substantial number and always have. The potential for compromise of the public interest, if one is disposed to the cynical view, is enormous. Lawyer-legislators are in a unique position to promote legislation designed to pad their pockets in a hundred ways and those of their clients as well. Yet no one suggests Section 109 prohibits lawyers serving in the legislature. Run down the current membership of the Senate and House of Representatives and note the many different occupations and professions represented: farmers, contractors, building suppliers, a veterinarian, many private business people, manufacturers' representatives, insurance, real estate, health care, engineer, law enforcement, banking, automobile dealers, timber grower, accountant, optometrist, oil distributors, broadcasting, nutritionist, railroad, pharmacist, funeral director, printing and office supplies, advertising, entomologist and many more. Each of these vocations and the net worth of those who pursue them may be greatly affected by the action (or inaction) of the legislature. Moreover, legislators who pursue these various private vocations are  again to adopt the view of the cynic  in a far better position to conceal from public view the profits they may make of the public's expense, while the (literally) poor school teacher's salary is available for all to scrutinize. I like to think the reason we do not fear these many private entrepreneurs and professionals serving in our legislative halls is that the overwhelming majority are honorable people who serve in the public interest informed by their collective experience. My cynic's eye tells me, however, that, hypothetically, the insurance agent could promote self-interested, protective legislation which could net him far, far more than Rep. James Nunnally's modest annual salary of $15,575.00. The lawyer legislator could, if he wished and were slick enough, promote legislation that could enhance the private interest of himself and his clients to in excess of ten times the meager salaries earned by Sen. Anderson and Rep. Frazier while teaching at Jackson State. And the list of (hypothetical) examples could be extended ad infinitum. There is another context. Legislators are taxpayers. Does a legislator have a conflict of interest when he votes on a tax bill? Should a legislator who is a consumer be allowed to vote on credit card legislation? On utility rate regulation legislation? Does not a legislator who owns property have a direct personal interest in ad valorem taxation legislation? Should a legislator who is alive be allowed to vote on matters affecting the public health and safety? The examples could be multiplied tenfold, reductio ad absurdum. The point, of course, is that we this day afford Section 109 a construction which in practical effect is irrational, if not silly. If as the Court holds its purpose is to protect the public interest from the human frailty of self-dealing, its arrow wounds at most the big toe of its intended victim. Even if it be thought we have reason to be wary of that toe, we proceed upon a record that fails to reflect a single stubbing, gouty inflammation, or other offending experience. We convict ourselves in the court of common sense.