Inflexible ruling boxes in cities

I am against the minimum-wage increase due to the long-run negative impacts on business growth, jobs and people.

Despite this, I do not support the recent interpretation of the Kentucky Supreme Court, invalidating both Louisville and Lexington’s minimum-wage laws. Because of the way the law is being interpreted, it is forcing Lexington and Louisville to live under the same rules as even tiny communities.

Essentially, the ruling states that if the state allows something, a city cannot prohibit it (with exceptions when the state law is insufficiently developed, such as smoking ban). The impact is that cities cannot adjust policy to meet their needs due to a “one-size-fits-all” legal interpretation.

Due to this strict adherence to the letter of the law, the court is violating the spirit of it. In a similar case relying on this interpretation, Lexington cannot remove the financially wasteful position of judge-executive, despite the fact that the last two elected officeholders campaigned on a pledge to attempt its removal.

I advocate for a more flexible interpretation of our constitution to allow cities and communities to adapt laws that make sense for them.

This story was originally published October 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM with the headline "Inflexible ruling boxes in cities."