Request By:
Mr. Richard F. Greathouse, M.D.
Office of the Coroner
Jefferson County
801 Fiscal Court Building
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You are serving as Chairman of the Kentucky Coroners' Association's Legal Committee. The Committee is presently considering two bills for presentation at the next session of the General Assembly.
One bill would require coroners or deputy coroners to take an examination testing their abilities and aptitudes and knowledge pertaining to the coroner's office. Under that bill persons desiring to be coroners or deputy coroners would have to pass the test prior to becoming eligible coroners or deputy coroners.
The second bill would require potential coroners or deputy coroners to take a formal training program and complete the same successfully, such as the one presented and given now by the Department of Justice at Richmond.
You request our opinion as to whether, under the Kentucky Constitution, the General Assembly could enact such legislation. You need a ruling as soon as possible.
KRS Chapter 72 deals primarily with the duties of coroners and deputy coroners. However, KRS 72.400 states that "It is the intent of KRS 72.410 to 72.470 to encourage the coroner to participate in approved training sessions to improve his skills for the Commonwealth and to cooperate with the state medical examiner program administered by the department for human resources." (Emphasis added). But there are presently no statutes mandating such training.
Let us first consider the proposed legislation mandating that coroners and deputy coroners take prescribed examinations and pass such tests in order to be eligible for those offices.
Section 99 of the Kentucky Constitution provides for the election of a coroner in each county. Section 100 of the Kentucky Constitution provides certain qualifications for offices (affecting coroners) described in Section 99 of the Constitution: (1) The person at the time of his election must be twenty-four years of age (except county and circuit court clerks); (2) The person must be a citizen of Kentucky; (3) The person must have resided in Kentucky two (2) years, and one year next preceding his election in the county and district in which he is a candidate.
Our appellate courts have adopted a rather strict rule as relates to the General Assembly's prescribing qualifications for offices specifically designated in the text of the constitution. The rule was stated in
Broughton v. Pursifull, 245 Ky. 137, 53 S.W.2d 200 (1932) 203 by Judge Thomas for the court:
"Where the constitution prescribes who shall be qualified to fill an office created by it, by enumerating certain qualifications that he must possess, there is a clear implication that any one possessing such qualifications may fill the office, and it is then incompetent for the legislature to prescribe additional disqualifications not recognized by the constitution. . . ." (Emphasis added).
Thus the court in Broughton, above, held that a statute preventing a candidate defeated in the primary from running for the same office (office of sheriff) at the following general election was unconstitutional because it prescribed a ground of ineligibility for that particular office not recognized by the constitution (see Section 100, Ky. Const.).
The rule of Broughton v. Pursifull, above, was cited in
Hales v. Langford, Ky., 446 S.W.2d 647 (1969) 649. The Kentucky Appellate Courts have to this day never retreated from the fundamental rule laid down in Broughton v. Pursifull, above. See also 67 C.J.S., Officers, Section 16, p.p. 258-259, discussing the Broughton principle as adopted in other jurisdictions. The federal district court in
McKinney v. Kaminsky (U.S. Dist. Ct. M.D. Ala, N.D. - 1972) 340 F.Supp. 289, 294, pointed out that the right to seek and hold public office is a property right protected by the federal constitution. However, he wrote that while it is competent for a state legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become a candidate for office under the state's police power, "those qualifications must be reasonable and not in conflict with any constitutional provision." (Emphasis added). The court cited Broughton v. Pursifull, above.
In our opinion, under the above authorities, the proposed legislation requiring coroners or deputy coroners to take and pass an examination in order to be eligible for such offices would, as relates to the coroners, be unconstitutional, since it would prescribe qualifications in conflict with those prescribed in the constitution under the doctrine of Broughton v. Pursifull.
As relates to the proposed legislation's application to deputy coroners, they are not specifically designated in the text of the constitution. Thus the deputy coroners are subject to the rule that "Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the constitution, the power to fix the qualifications of public officers or employees may be exercised by the legislature. The qualifications for, or conditions of, public employment may not be arbitrary, but must be reasonable and based on substantial grounds which are natural and inherent in the subject matter of the legislation. . . . Qualifications used to limit or deny the right to hold office or employment must bear a rational relationship to the responsibilities, duties and purposes of the office or employment in question. . . ." (Emphasis added). See
Department of Revenue v. Turner, Ky., 260 S.W.2d 658 (1953), holding that statutory qualifications (examinations for county tax commissioners, a non-constitutional office) for tax commissioners were not arbitrary under Section 2, Constitution, and did not violate Sections 3 and 59, Constitution, relating to classifications based on reasonable and natural distinctions and germane to the purpose of the law.
As relates to the proposed legislation, as applied to deputy coroners, any examination and test procedures would be valid, provided that they are not arbitrary and bear a rational relationship to the responsibilities, duties and purposes of the office of deputy coroner.
Concerning the second bill, "requiring" training programs and successful completion of same for coroners and deputy coroners, the mandate could not be used such that the failure to observe the training mandate on the part of coroners would constitute ineligibility to hold office. In such situation the court rule in Broughton would be violated. Such legislation with that effect would be unconstitutional.
In applying the second bill to deputy coroners, and where the mandate amounts to disqualification for deputy coroners failing to take the training or failing to complete the training successfully, the rule relating to deputies in connection with the first bill, as discussed above, would govern as to constitutionality.