Ban on Public Employee Union Payroll Deductions, with Exception for Certain Unions, Violates Kentucky Constitution
From Commonwealth v. Kentucky Educ. Ass’n, decided Mar. 7 by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (Judge Susanne Cetrulo, joined by Judges Sara Walter Combs and Kelly Mark Easton):
[SB 7] prohibits public employers from allowing most employees to use payroll deductions to pay dues to labor organizations or to make contributions for political activities, such as through contributions to political committees connected to labor organizations. But Section 1(10) of SB 7 exempted labor organizations “which primarily represent public employees working in the protective vocations of active law enforcement officer, jail and corrections officer, or active fire suppression or prevention personnel.” {The only stated purpose of the final version of SB 7 was to avoid “the appearance that public resources are being used to support partisan political activity[.]”} …
“All men are, by nature, free and equal ….” Ky. Const. Section 1. “Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.” Ky. Const. Section 2. “All men, when they form a social compact, are equal; and no grant of exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges shall be made to any man or set of men, except in consideration of public services….” Ky. Const. Section 3.
Section 3 is the oldest continuous provision in the Kentucky Constitution. It is in all four of Kentucky’s Constitutions. While we have recognized that corporate entities are entitled to equal protection, we should not lose sight that the focus of Section 3 is on people. The Appellees complain of disparate, politically motivated treatment of labor organizations, but ultimately it is the inexplicable different treatment of individuals which most clearly illustrates the equal protection violation in this case….
[T]he legislative regulation at issue here, payroll deduction policies, is a matter of social or economic policy. It does not involve any suspect class requiring strict scrutiny or a similar heightened level of review. Rather, the question is whether there is any rational basis for the different treatment of individuals. All
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
