Request By:
Mr. Hal Cole
McCracken County Sheriff
Courthouse
Paducah, Kentucky 42001
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of June 8, in which you state that the McCracken County deputy sheriff who is now the Democratic nominee for sheriff owned a Metro Security Guard Service until late 1975 at which time he turned the business over to his wife. However, he subsequently worked as guard for this company. Your further relate that you have investigated complaints that he violated subsection (1)(d) of KRS 61.300 involving labor disputes and have affidavits to the effect that he assigned and directed security guards at a work stoppage or a labor dispute at Proform Inc. in September or October of 1975. Under the circumstances you raise the following questions:
"If he were found guilty of this charge would he be eligible to fill the office of Sheriff beginning in 1978, considering the two year restrictions in section (1) (d) of KRS 61.300? Would by virtue of the fact that his spouse owns Metro Security Service and supplied guards at the Paducah Marine Ways strike in July of 1976 and that Elliott has worked for said security service as a guard in December of 1976, would these vested interests disqualify him to be sheriff in 1978 or as deputy sheriff now? Does OAG 61-490 still apply to Deputy Sheriffs?"
KRS 61.300 does not apply to the office of sheriff since this is an elective office. Thus any alleged violations of the statute would not effect the candidacy of the present deputy or his eligibility to hold the office of sheriff.
KRS 61.300(1)(d) disqualifying any deputy sheriff or other nonelected peace officer from serving as such where the individual had within two years acted as a private guard has, we believe, been implied repealed by a subsequent amendment to KRS 61.310(4) as held in OAG 72-232, copy attached. OAG 61-490 is modified accordingly. However, OAG 72-232 did not specifically refer to that portion of the statute prohibiting the participation in labor disputes within two years of an appointment and you will note that the 1968 amendment to KRS 61.310(4) contains the specific restriction that no peace officer may participate directly or indirectly in any labor dispute during his off-duty hours. We believe this retained restriction on participating in labor disputes in the 1968 amendment indicates that the amendment was not intended to effect the two year restriction found in KRS 61.300(1)(d), but was on the other hand inserted to complement it. Therefore, if the deputy sheriff did in fact participate in any labor dispute within two years of his appointment, such appointment was in violation of KRS 61.300(1)(d).
You next raise the following question with reference to the McCracken County Democratic Primary:
"Sheriff candidates Elliott, Edwards and Beyer are in capitol letters. Joyce and Gill are not. Elliott was the winner with 3798 votes and Gill was second with 3297 votes. Since the first name has the advantage it is logical to reason that the larger capitol letters had the advantage over the non-capitol letters in Joyce and Gill."
This office has taken the position in OAG 63-435, copy attached, that the size and printing of names of the various candidates on the ballot must be uniform and should be of the same size type, if it is possible to do so. What advantage, if any, this gives the candidate with the larger type is questionable. However, in any event it is a matter to be raised in a contest suit. Of course contest suits in the primary must be filed within 15 days following the primary, which time has expired. See KRS 120.055.