Court Opinion

ID: 9647720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:48:19.689078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:52.494916
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge MacPhail:
I respectfully dissent. I can find no rational basis for the distinction between elected and compensated appointed officials on the one hand and uncompensated appointed officials on the other which is drawn by Section 2 of the Act of October 4,1978 (Act), P.L. 883, as amended, 65 P.S. §402. Therefore, I would hold that the Act violates Petitioners’ equal protection rights1 and is unconstitutional.
The praiseworthy purposes of the Act, as set forth in Section 1, 65 P.S. §401, are twofold: (1) to assure that public officials do not realize personal financial gain through their offices and (2) to strengthen public faith and confidence in government by assuring that an official’s financial interests will present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict of interest *359with the public trust. The purposes of the Act are so important to the integrity of our governmental process and to the public’s support of that process that I can see no rational basis for excluding appointed officials merely because they receive no direct compensation from the State or political subdivision they serve.
If the purposes of the Act are to be served it must apply to all public officials, elected or appointed, compensated or uncompensated, who exercise the power of the State or of any political subdivision.2

 U. S. Const., Amend. XIV, §1.

 Respondents argue that if we find that the Act violates Petitioners’ equal protection rights, we should not invalidate the Act but should extend it to include noncompensated, appointed public officials. I do not believe that we have the power to do that in a case such as this. Respondents cite two cases for the proposition that statutes attacked on equal protection grounds may be extended to include classes of persons omitted from their coverage. Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) ; Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973). In both of those cases, however, the Court extended a right to the excluded classes. Here, we are being asked to extend a restriction to the excluded classes. While I believe that all public officials should be included within the coverage of the Act, I do not believe that it is within our power to so extend the Act.