Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County

Last updated

Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
NDIL-Seal.gif
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Full case nameMichael L. Shakman, et al. vs. Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al.
Docket nos. 1:69-cv-02145
Citation(s)310 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1969); reversed, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970); cert. denied, 402 U.S. 909(1971)

356 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1972); affirmed, 533 F.2d 344 (7th Cir. 1976); cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858(1976)
481 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill. 1979); reversed, Shakman v. Dunne, 829 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1987)
508 F. Supp. 1063 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
508 F. Supp. 1059 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
552 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
569 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. Ill. 1983)
560 F. Supp. 863 (N.D. Ill. 1983)
607 F. Supp. 1086 (N.D. Ill. 1985)
634 F. Supp. 895 (N.D. Ill. 1986)
677 F. Supp. 933 (N.D. Ill. 1987)
844 F. Supp. 422 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

920 F. Supp. 2d

Contents

881 (N.D. Ill. 2013)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Abraham Lincoln Marovitz; Nicholas John Bua; Ann Claire Williams

Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-cv-02145, is a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois regarding political patronage in the hiring of public officials and First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case resulted in negotiations from 1969-1983 that brought to fruition the Shakman Decrees, largely reducing political corruption in the Chicago government. Parts of the case are still being negotiated to this day. [1] [2] [3]

Background

Chicago politics had long been dominated by political patronage, or the rewarding of supporters through position and the punishment of opponents through demotion or firing. Public employees, therefore had to be careful with political allegiances; campaigning for a loser would result in demotion, firing, or transfer, while neutrality could result in a stagnant career advancement. [1] [2] [3]

Shakman, then an attorney, ran for a public position outside of the Cook County Democratic Party and lost. He was distressed at the level of support the incumbent Democrats received from public employees and was, along with other plaintiffs, shocked to learn that this was often mandatory support required by the politicians as a part of the patronage system for those employees to keep their positions. Shakman argued this was a violation of employee rights, free elections, and use of public funds and was therefore in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments. [1] [2] [3]

Shakman filed a suit against the Democratic Organization of Cook County claiming the patronage system gave unconstitutional and unfair advantage to organized candidates over others, since employees would campaign and support the organized candidates. [1] [2] [3]

Case

Shakman, along with Paul M. Lurie, filed a class action suit claiming the Democratic Organization of Cook County was in violation of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shakman claimed that the defendants, a number of government employees and politicians, had violated the fundamental rights of a fair and equal electoral process and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. [1] [2] [3]

The defendants included:

  1. The Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County and its members, including its Chairman, George W. Dunne
  2. The City of Chicago
  3. George W. Dunne, individually and as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County
  4. Morgan M. Finley, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
  5. Thomas M. Tully, Assessor of Cook County
  6. Stanley T. Kusper, as Clerk of Cook County
  7. Edward J. Rosewell, as Treasurer of Cook County
  8. The Forest Preserve District of Cook County

The complaint stemmed from government employees being mandated to campaign or contribute to the political campaigns of Democratic candidates to guarantee their employment in the future. This had been a long-standing practice of Democratic politicians in Chicago who had a majority at the time. Along with being unconstitutional, Shakman claimed that it was a burden on taxpayers since the public funds and work hours allotted to these employees was being requisitioned for campaigns. Ending political patronage, therefore, would be beneficial to the public budget and to taxpayers. [1] [2] [3]

The case was thrown out of court in 1969, [4] but reversed and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1970, [5] leading to a long deliberation. After the reversal of the case the plaintiffs and much of the defendants were able to enter into a consent decree on most of the pressing issues. The defendants agreed to much of the complaints and resolved to make the necessary changes. Stipulations of fact were filed to resolve the remaining issues. [1] [2] [3]

The court underwent a thorough test of constitutionality of political patronage and considered the interests at stake within the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They considered the right to free association and the right to equal participation in the electoral process. [3] The court also recognized that there was a liability that the defendants had committed a civil conspiracy in the act of political patronage, thus incentivizing them negotiating a deal. [3]

The defendants admitted that they in fact were given a significant electoral advantage from political patronage and were therefore consenting to negotiate some acceptable terms that Shakman et al. could agree to. [3]

"Shakman Decrees"

After years of negotiations, both parties agree on the three "Shakman Decrees" of 1972, 1979, and 1983 respectively. These decrees enforced the principle that it was unlawful to effect an individual's employment status one way or the other on the grounds of political patronage and allegiances. There were of course some exceptions such as in the case for positions that had political aspects, such as policy making. [1] [2] [3]

Ongoing case

The case has never been fully resolved. Despite the necessary negotiations the court required, they have not all been settled. However, Rahm Emanuel believes that the ongoing case may soon be over, and has stated that the Chicago government is closer than ever to negotiating a proper balance of standards that both parties agree to. [6]

Significance

The Shakman case helped to greatly reduce the power of political patronage among the Chicago political system and paved the way to reducing it nationwide. Although it is still likely present in politics, it is certainly practiced to a much lesser extent and much more discreetly. Patronage was generally found to be unconstitutional and contrary to the belief in fair and equal elections, employee rights, and the use of public dollars. The long deliberation resulted in much more free and open politics in regards to public employees, with the aim at reducing political corruption. [1] [2] [3]

Related Research Articles

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Patronage is the support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid that an organization or individual bestows on another. In the history of art, arts patronage refers to the support that princes, popes, and other wealthy and influential people have provided to artists such as musicians, painters, and sculptors. It can also refer to the right of bestowing offices or church benefices, the business given to a store by a regular customer, and the guardianship of saints. The word patron derives from the Latin patronus ('patron'), one who gives benefits to his clients.

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation. It overturned the Texas state law that authorized parties to set their internal rules, including the use of white primaries. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to delegate its authority over elections to parties in order to allow discrimination to be practiced. This ruling affected all other states where the party used the white primary rule.

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.

<i>Shaw v. Reno</i> 1993 US Supreme Court gerrymandering case

Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cook County Democratic Party</span> Political party in Illinois, US

The Cook County Democratic Party is an American county-level political party organization which represents voters in 50 wards in the city of Chicago and 30 suburban townships of Cook County. The organization has dominated Chicago politics since the 1930s. It relies on an organizational structure of a ward or township committeeperson to elect candidates. At the height of its influence under Richard J. Daley in the 1960s when political patronage in employment was endemic in American cities, it was one of the most powerful political machines in American history. By the beginning of the 21st century the party had largely ceased to function as a machine due to the legal dismantling of the patronage system under the Shakman Decrees issued by the federal court in Chicago. The current Chair is Toni Preckwinkle, who is also the elected Cook County Board president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marvin Aspen</span> American judge (born 1934)

Marvin E. Aspen is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Ohio had violated the equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of two political parties by refusing to print their candidates' names on the ballot.

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth amendments to U.S. Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Berrios</span> American politician

Joseph "Joe" Berrios is a Democratic politician who was the Assessor and Chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party of Cook County, Illinois, as well as a registered Illinois state government lobbyist. He was the first Hispanic American to serve in the Illinois General Assembly and the first and only Hispanic American to chair the Cook County Democratic Party. He was also a commissioner on the Cook County Board of Review, a property tax assessment appeal panel.

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i> Civil lawsuit

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

The Shakman decrees are a series of Federal court orders regarding government employment in Chicago, which were issued in 1972, 1979, and 1983, in response to a lawsuit filed by civic reformer Michael Shakman. The decrees bar the practice of political patronage, under which government jobs are given to supporters of a politician or party, and government employees may be fired for not supporting a favored candidate or party.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago, or Times v. City of Chicago is the name of two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957 and 1961. Both involved the issue of limits on freedom of expression in connection with motion pictures. In both cases the court affirmed the right of local governments to engage in some form of censorship.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding political speech of public employees. The Court ruled in this case that public employees may be active members in a political party, but cannot allow patronage to be a deciding factor in work related decisions. The court upheld the decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the respondent.

Truax v Raich239 US 33 (1915) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning U.S. labor laws, the right to work, immigration law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Odas Nicholson</span> American lawyer and judge

Odas Nicholson was an attorney, activist and judge in Illinois.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Shakman Decrees". Encyclopedia of Chicago.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "The Shakman Decrees". Cook FP Shakman. Archived from the original on August 26, 2013.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481F. Supp.1315 (N.D. Ill.1979).
  4. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 310F. Supp.1398 (N.D. Ill.1969).
  5. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435F.2d267 (7th Cir.1970).
  6. Brown, Mark. "Is city ready to be free of Shakman case?". Chicago Sun Times.