Agenda - Council - 12/20/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I Page -6- "Significantly, the supreme court, while testing the constitu- tionality of a "grandfather" provision, has emphasized the importance of articulating the legislative purpose. The opinion in United States v. Maryland Savings-share Insurance Corp., 400 U.S. 4, 91 S.Ct. 16, 27L.Ed2d 4 (1970), then, appears to suggest the possibility that a "grandfather" provision will not survive equal protection scrutiny unless the legislative history reveals some specified purpose for its inclusion in the statute. Such a rule might be rationalized on the ground that "grandfather" clauses possess especially strong potential for abuse of the political process." Id. at 1095. However, the court reluctantly agreed to consider alternative explanations for the legislatures' behavior since the record was completely void of any indication of legislative intent or purpose. Similarly, in Murillo v. Bambrick, 508 F.Supp. 830, 833 (D.N.J. 1981) the court considered the state's arguments of legislative purpose as follows: "The defendant contends that the state has had a long standing policy of 'not encouraging' divorces, and that this policy continued at least through September, 1980. Solely because the defendant in this case is an officer of the State of New Jersey, represented by the attorney general of New 3ersey~ does not mean that the court is bound to accept his contention as to the articulated purposes of the state. Although defendant may be cloaked in the mantel of the State of New Jersey when he appears before this court, he does so with the same burdens and responsibilities as any other litigant. Defendant's assertions of New 3ersey state policy are not sacrosanct. This court is empowered N indeed it is required -- to pierce the surface of defendant's assertions and to examine the actual purposes underlying the statute in question." Id. at 838. The court then went on to review a statement by the committee of the state legislature, and the testimony at trial in its entirety to determine the "purpose" of the statute involved. Id. at 838. See also Grove v. Ohio State University~ College of Veterinary Medicine, 424 F.S{~pp. 377, 387-388 (S.D. Ohio 1976) ("articulated state purpose" must be found by looking a~t "direct statutory indication" of such a purpose and the non-adversial statement of University's Board of Trustees). I