Opinion ID: 1687742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues

Text: Is the Act unconstitutional insofar as it compels financial disclosure by an employee primarily subject to the Act of the financial interests of his or her spouse? Again, because this portion of the statute draws no suspect classification and impinges on no fundamental rights, the constitutionality of the Act insofar as it applies to the spouses of those primarily subject to the Act must be determined by applying the rational basis test. Applying that test, we hold that the Act's application to spouses and dependents is rationally related to the proper legislative purposes of preventing and detecting corruption among public employees and fostering the public's confidence in its government. Not only is the means of accomplishing the legislative purpose ( i. e., disclosure by an employee of his or her spouse's financial interests) reasonable, but it is necessary to make the Act effective. Absent a safe-guard provision the purposes of the Act could be thwarted by a public officer or employee concealing his economic interests by placing them in his spouse's name. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Code 1975, § 36-25-1, et seq., passes constitutional muster under the instant challenges. AFFIRMED. BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, ALMON and SHORES, JJ., concur. BEATTY, J., with whom EMBRY, J., joins, concurs specially. JONES, J., with whom FAULKNER, J., joins, dissents.