our next case for argument is sha yes i take it you agree that no rule sixty motion was ever filed at least not as a formal matter if as a formal standalone motion no sixty v motion was filed however in so that sets up the question whether if the district court discusses rule sixty criteria but there has never been a rule sixty motion does that amount to a many board of appeals every so held senior know the reason and the reason i ask this and i don't i don't think the briefs tackled this directly is that the supreme court has said pretty consistently jurisdiction need to be clear and mechanical and the argument that sort of something that might have been a motion but wasn't and was addressed by the district court even though there was no motion and ninety one of the thing though and i can't that i have the hardest time figuring out is how a consent decree can remain in place there'd i think it's either quarterly or semiannually status reports get filed the docket has over seven thousand entries and you know we're now having a tangle here about well there's a fall sixty bere to do not fall sixty be one of the points you seem to make if i if i understand correctly is that the clerk's office has long moved past the problems that gave rise to the consent decree that  patronage promotions or hiring practices are no longer an issue and what that triggers in my mind is why twenty years ago you didn't go in a federalism concern with a local office or a local arm of municipal government remaining under what seems to be an indefinite consent decree that nobody seems to be paying much attention to other than just finally the status reports in the in the the planet compliance report that you refer to i think it's an exceptional federalism problem especially when you look at in the context of what's happened here in two motion to lift that consent decrees in two thousand and three or in two thousand and four or in two thousand and five or in two thousand and twenty well you are out of it so again i think i don't know why or did not do that  like it's on your client i mean i really understand officeholders change and time goes on but when they come in like they do in their consent decree remains on the books nobody's asked for it i mean and it's just this whole busy the whole past year that this case comes to us and makes very little sense to me you're right i don't disagree with you on that it's you know trying to learn this case in the past year or so it's offices which is especially what plaintiff motion was trying to impose upon the clerk other offices entered into agreed supplemental relief orders are negotiated over time so maybe they'll put judge easter brooks point a different way why don't you jurisdiction you're saying let's ignore what the actual forms were let's look at substance over form and the question i have is how is that consistent with the fundamental principle that rules  appellate jurisdiction have to be applied mechanically once we adopt a substance were formed doctrine we can't have any mechanical rules anymore and then we're in the soup that that's the reason why i'm worried let's look to substance rather than form my question is if we look to substance rather than form can we any longer have a doctrine that appellate jurisdiction is determined mechanically that is is a look to substance rather than form approach consistent with the supreme court's insistence that appellate jurisdiction be determined mechanically i think it is  i would really like you to address the problem rather than repeatedly denied that there is a problem there is a problem it's a difficult one to address but it can't be wished away i understand your honor if we had so one of the one of the at the at the heart of judge is to rick's question which i know you probably realize is you know sixty b is not a rule that is unique to the shackman consent decrees sixty applies across all six all civil cases and that's one of the reasons why this is very difficult here when you just see well it's we pointed to sixty be in a brief in a kind of affective became sixty b and we can if we do a find we can we can find four or five or six references in judging others order to sixty be so it sure smells like sixty b and therefore it must be a sixty b motion i mean that's ok we do that here what do we do tomorrow when we're you know we're dealing with we're contract dispute or prisoner litigation or whatever existed for a long long time sets out of procedure and standards for a defendant in any case of particularly in these types of ace to come forward when they believe that they can meet the standard under a roof over says inmates of suffolk county or of education versus dahlan harm versus florus to show that the purpose of the consent decrees have been accomplished that they office has been complying in good faith with the consent decrees and that the office has implemented a durable remedy to answer judge scudder's question from earlier as to why the office had not filed a motion sooner i don't believe they could have met this those standards your honor the amendments that m unilateral changes to the examples without seeking court approval to verify that those positions actually did meet the bronchi standard for political considerations to be appropriate for the job shows that the office was not complying you my perception might be wrong it wouldn't be the st time and that is that this this looks like a dormant consent decree until you came forward is that mistaken i mean it just seems to have at least at least as applied to the clerk of cook county to have remained on the district court's docket with reports and plan reports and what have you being filed but until you came forward on behalf of your clients in what was it two thousand and eighteen or two thousand and ninety it had just been sitting there should that concern us or not i do not believe that it should concern your honor because again the supreme court has set forth a procedure for a defendant to come in and establish that they are in substantial comparing compliance with the decree and that the decrees can sunset so your point is that they they should there so after discovery there was an evidentiary hearing in one case it was a three week hearing on another case and leave was a today hearing there were witnesses there affidavits that were submitted and then the court made the up to date findings of fact that horn requires in order to rule on whether or not the decree should be modified or dissolved and that's the issue here is that the defendant has the burden of coming forward under rule sixty b and presenting an affirmative case showing that they have met the standard three a group of lieutenants had filed in an foresman action against the city of chicago in their opposition to the motion to enforce the city raised rule sixty saying that the plaintiffs you know changes in law standing rendered these plaintiffs no longer able to enforce the decree and what this court reversed and remanded saying if i don't remain on the city wishes to pursue a rule sixty motion and the court would consider the rule sixty motion at that time now again just like the clerk's office here the city in two thousand and five was not able to do that because when we got into the evidence the city we discovered that there had been rampant violations of the  consent decrees by the city and judge anderson appointed a monitor in that case and then after the monitor was report was appointed and more evidence came to light the city also mentally entered into what they called the agreed supplemental or in a court and here is the important thing and in terms of federalism your honor our goal here is to not keep these cases going on forever we've been working very hard with these defendants and federal court oversight and through the procedure that judge shanker answered in this case and the judge chang is now very ably overseeing the appointment of a special master to go in and to monitor compliance with the court order to monitor compliance with the durable remedy that the defendant has proposed typically it's some sort of an employment plan or a hiring plan and we've been able to bring the city should go cook county cook county sheriff's office the forest preserve district of cook county all of those offices have been able to achieve substantial compliance all in what the overwhelming evidence that judge shanker found demonstrated is that this office at this time is not committed to comply with the decrees it's not committed to rooting out political discrimination and preventing on lawful political discrimination o nce this office commits to that it's not going to take a long time for them to come up with the party started in march you know in response to this litigation they started drafting a personal manual that lays out hiring procedures that was finalized in march of this year on the eve of our evidentiary hearing so what the office needs to show is that they're actually going to implement that and you know the record shows right now your honor that the personnel manual not been implemented none of the employees have been trained on it yet and the clerk has indicated that she's planning on making significant changes to that once she's come up with that plan we'll have a monitor to observe to make sure as john shanker held that plan is actually followed more in the observance and just on paper and if the court if the clerk can show that that her office can do that then we'll be able then she'll be able to file rule sixty motion and as we do with the city the county sheriff the fores with the defendant and say they did what they needed to do there's a durable remedy in place they've complied in good faith not perfect but complied a good faith with the consent decrees in federal over court oversight should  monitor and plaintiffs disagree but that's being litigated right now in front of judge chang the assessor's office has a monitor and they just recently file their employment plan so we're hopeful that within the next twelve months that they with her own internal employment plans she did not comply with the consent decrees and so the recorder's office under clerk yarborough and then after she became the clerk was not able to achieve substantial compliance the record is being merged mayor emanuel what the county did under president park when call and forest preserve get under president practicing call in the sheriff get under your heart if there's a commitment to actually implementing these plans this durable remedy as required under have been accomplished and she's complied with it in good faith and that there is a durable remedy and the findings of fact of the trial court which this court should i invite the court to review shows that none of those yet and so therefore this particular office is not yet ready to file or to meet the standards for rule sixty b motion again you know the the other argument i just want to touch on your honor is the standing argument if the court has questions i would certainly entertain those obviously in this case the standing argument that the that the defendant has made in this case is based entirely on ignoring the addition of the independent voters of illinois an independent precinct organization as an additional named plaintiff in one thousand nine hundred and ninety and the claims that the asserted were not just it's on its own pacifically invoked root tan in that amended complaint and said that it was bringing those claims on behalf of its members who are employees and applicants for government jobs and even the clerk concedes that employees whatever standing issues this court may have found shachtman two were cured and so from that point forward the plaintiffs clearly had standing but also in addition to the i v i standing found that a competitive injury creates standing for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit and in this case and what distinguishes our case from the cases cited by the by the clerk's office is unlawful political discrimination against applicants employees is absolutely unlawful government offices cannot do that in the case political just political gerrymandering is perfectly you know the constitution assigns that past to the legislatures and so the plaintiffs there were arguing about you know how much political german ending is fair and that's not the case here here we're not saying that you know republicans are entitled to a certain number and democrats are entitled to a certain number of patronage jobs our argument is that the st amendment prohibits discrimination except for a small subset of of high ranking policymaking positions and so if you are a clerk working at a counter taking in marriage certificate applications and issuing marriage certificates whether you're republican or democrat is irrelevant and should not be considered at all and in this case the st amendment rights of candidates to associate with government applicants job applicants and employees is infringed by this unlawful conduct as a st amendment association right has two questions not only is it the right of the employees in job applicants to associate with a candidate it's also the candidates right to a susi with job applicants and employees and so the cases that have been decided since shack prints you clearly set forth  about competitive injury does give rise to standing and in the complaint mister shachtman did allow that because of the unlawful patronage he was forced to expend money and divert resources from his campaign in order to counteract the patronage army that was arrayed against him and that same continues to be true today your honor and so case law is very clear that when a political party a candidate or an association can allege that they had to divert resources to her energy from what they would like to be doing in order to counter and unlawful behavior that is an injury spending money is an injury recognized by this court in every other court and so therefore  the candidates themselves also have standing to continue to enforce these consent decrees and unless your has any of the questions about standing or just bring the question then the court should dismiss these this appeal because the court does not have jurisdiction over the case and they should remand it to allow the clerk if she thinks she can meet the standards and the evidence so far shows that she cannot but she can file a motion for rule sixty b parties can do discovery on an issue and the trial court in the st instance will make findings and apply the rule sixty b standard but that point whichever side doesn't prevail would be able to bring an appeal