ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 TAG: 9701150101
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
JUSTICES are considering the constitutionality of a Georgia law requiring tests of candidates for office.
Supreme Court justices questioned on Tuesday whether a Georgia law requiring drug tests for political candidates violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.
``What is the thinking behind this statute other than making a political statement?'' asked Justice Stephen Breyer.
The 1992 law is being challenged by three Libertarian Party candidates who took the drug tests under protest in 1994. Walker Chandler, the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor that year, told the high court the law is an unconstitutional expansion of government powers for purely symbolic purposes.
``Candidates should be judged by the things that they say and things that they do and not by the products of their bodies,'' he said.
Georgia Assistant Attorney General Patricia Guilday agreed that the law has symbolic value, but she said it also serves to ensure that habitual drug users never end up on the ballot.
Questioned by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Guilday conceded there is no evidence of a drug problem among elected officials in Georgia. But she said the state has a special interest in maintaining drug-free candidates because elected officials are trustees and servants of the public.
Several justices seem unconvinced by that argument.
``This court looks a little more closely at totally suspicionless searches, doesn't it?'' asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice David Souter got Guilday to agree that a law requiring candidates to submit to drug searches of their homes would be unconstitutional, then pressed her to explain ``why opening a house is more intrusive than opening a body.''
Guilday argued that the drug tests are less intrusive because they disclose information only about candidates' recent use of five specific drugs, and not about their possessions or the way they live.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that any symbolic value candidate drug tests might have in deterring drug use may be negated if the tests violate the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches.
``Doesn't the Constitution come first?'' she asked.
The justices questioned Chandler at length about whether he had the legal standing to bring the appeal, since he took the test in 1994 and is no longer a candidate for public office in Georgia.
Chandler tried to reassure the court on that point, declaring on his oath as an officer of the court that he intended to run again for some office in Georgia. Guilday also urged the justices to rule on the merits of the case, rather than reject the appeal over the side issue.
The high court has upheld random drug testing three times, and Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the state might be on stronger legal ground if its law required random tests rather than mandatory tests of all candidates.
LENGTH: Medium: 60 linesby CNB