Court Opinion

ID: 9634339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:08:59.433308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:00.748033
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the result the majority reaches only insofar as it finds unconstitutional the spousal disclosure provisions of our Public Officials’ Ethics Act. Such disclosure is in my view based on outmoded notions of spousal unity and subservience. Although I share the dissent’s concern that removal of this requirement may render the act meaningless in its application to some officials who are members of traditional families, I believe that concern is outweighed by the danger of imposing the sanction of removal or the sanctions of the criminal laws on other public officials whose spouses commonly follow independent private careers and would be unwilling or unable to make the disclosure called for by the statute. In such cases the requirement of spousal disclosure seems to me to subject such officials to prosecution based on status. That result seems to me to offend the provisions of Article I, Section I, of the Declaration of Rights in our Pennsylvania Constitution. On this independent state ground alone, analogous to Fourteenth Amendment due process, I agree with the majority that a public official cannot be required to disclose spouse’s financial interests under pain of criminal sanctions.
However, I wish to disassociate myself entirely from what I consider is the majority’s unnecessary discussion of the shadowy reaches of the right of privacy the judiciary has interpolated into our state and federal constitutions. Moreover, I see no reason why a parent who seeks or *203accepts public office cannot be required to disclose the financial interests of children dependent on him.
For these reasons I concur in the result with respect to spousal disclosure, but dissent with respect to minor dependent children.