Summary

The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case Chandler vs. Miller, which will determine whether a state may require candidates for state and local public offices to submit to a drug test.

Source CONUS Archive
Record ID 261504
Story Slug SCOTUS HEARS DRUG TEST ARGUMENTS (1997)
Location WASHINGTON, DC
Format TVD
Date 1/14/1997
Archive Time 16:23
TRT 3:57
Supers 1) Patricia Guilday / Georgia Assistant Attorney General 2) Walker Chandler / former Libertarian Party Candidate and Drug Test Opponent
Description The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case Chandler vs. Miller, which will determine whether a state may require candidates for state and local public offices to submit to a drug test.
Script (SUGGESTED TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO) Unknown Speaker 00:02 Georgia has the interest as I explained to the court giving the voting public some assurance that the candidate has the qualifications of a trustee or fiduciary, which is required under the Georgia constitution. And a fiduciary a trustee has characteristics of honesty, judgment, integrity, loyalty. Drug use is incompatible with that with those characteristics. The drug test serves to give the public some information at one particular point in time at least that that individual does not use drugs. But the other side would say, you know, those do reactively I think it's common knowledge that in today's society in the United States, generally there is a drug problem. And it is reasonable to expect that that problem may exist in the candidate or in someone who was political office if the public. were arguing that they have a, we have a right to know that on that particular date. They do not use drugs. Mr. Chan. Our discussion this morning, the first amendment we have argued from the outset that there is no First Amendment case here at all. This test does not impact first amendment right whatsoever, because Mr. Chandler and all other candidates retained at all times the right to speak out against the statute to lobby against its repeal if he should be elected. There's just no First Amendment issue at all. As to the Fourth Amendment. I think that was argued in court. It's a balancing test the privacy interest against the government's interests. And it'd be for the court to determine which the interests which are proposed by Georgia strong enough. What about the fact that we, as I said earlier, we believe that he has a strong purpose and giving information to the voting public about the characteristics of someone who's choosing to run for public office in Georgia, please, again, address the Unknown Speaker 01:46 cameras while I'm trying to basically defend the rights of all people, the Libertarian Party, that's what we're about. We're the party that believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility. We're trying to specifically get a law requiring suspicionless drug tests of political candidates to be overturned. But the implications of that go far beyond the this law alone. If we can have suspicionless tests of those who are supposedly going to be driving the ship of state, why not suspicionless tests of all people who are going to be driving cars down the freeway, the logic would be exactly the same. Several of the justices brought up that kind of logic, if you can test people for suspicionless tests for drugs just because they voluntarily become candidates for public office. Why can't you search their homes for other possible evidences of wrongdoing? Those These are important questions that the people the United States need to address, but not just in a judicial context. But in a personal and political context. Integrity isn't something that we have to pay a price for. It's something we need to work at. It's something we need to demand of our public officials. But what we see is a lack of integrity. We see people, politicians of the Democrat and Republican parties running to show that they're drug free and to submit to tests. But the implication of that is they're going to be requiring broader and broader segments of the population to submit to tests. And those tests today may be for illegal drugs tomorrow, they may be for genetic defects. They may be for mental illnesses, they may be for AIDS or any other thing that they may deem a compelling governmental interest for which you the people need to be searched. What about the notion that drugs are I think the people perhaps have a right to make the choice between a person who submits to a test and a person who refuses to test. I personally would rather vote for a person who refuses to test because he would be more likely, in my opinion, to be the kind of person who would defend my rights to be left alone and my rights to be safe from unconstitutional searches and seizures. Once a year. I think that that's that's always a question that's being asked. But you're your argument. I think, I think that they all understood
Not everything listed in the CONUS Archive is necessarily licensable. Reporter sound/image is not licensable
}