holding that legislative attempt to authorize political activity by court employees was an unconstitutional infringement upon the Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional mandate to administrate all courts and supervise all officers of the judicial branch
How later courts described this case
- holding that legislative attempt to authorize political activity by court employees was an unconstitutional infringement upon the Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional mandate to administrate all courts and supervise all officers of the judicial branch
- concluding that a statutory provision was suspended to the extent it conflicted with a Pennsylvania Supreme Court administrative directive forbidding court employees from engaging in partisan political activity
- Section 410 of the Ethics Act (65 P.S. § 410) permits court employees to participate in partisan political activity is unconstitutional as applied to any person affected by this Courts directive forbidding partisan political activity as violative of Pa. Const. Art. V, § 10(c)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but find it unnecessary to reach or discuss the delicate question whether this Court’s administrative rule precluding employees of the judicial system from running for political office is paramount to a statute which would permit that activity.
Whether or not the rule remains valid in the face of the legislative enactment, this appellant chose to quit her employment without directly testing its validity. I am' at a loss to see how she can now attack it indirectly in this unemployment compensation proceeding after she decided to quit.
Had the system terminated her employment for violation of the rule appellant might question the propriety of the *447 rule as a basis for discharge. Even in such a case the issue would not be the legal validity of the rule, but whether it was so unreasonable that the employee’s refusal to obey it was not willful misconduct.