State ex rel. Vana v. Maple Heights City Council

I must respectfully dissent from the syllabus and judgment because Section 4, Article III of the Maple Heights Charter, as applied to appellant Zgrabik, is not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.1

At common law, a public official or employee could freely hold more than one office, provided the positions were not incompatible. Throop, A Treatise on the Law Relating to Public Officers and Sureties in Official Bonds (1892) 33-34, Section 30; Mechem, A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers (1890) 267-268, Section 420. At common law, offices were said to be incompatible…