Opinion ID: 792232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Original Shakman Litigation

Text: 4 In 1969, Michael Shakman was an independent candidate seeking election to the Illinois Constitutional Convention. He and one of his supporters brought suit on behalf of themselves, other candidates and voters against several governmental entities and officials, including the City of Chicago and its Mayor. The class alleged that the defendants maintained a patronage system under which government employment decisions—both hiring and retention—were based on the prospective (or current) employees' support of Democratic candidates. According to Mr. Shakman, this system violated the right of a candidate to associate with supporters, the right of voters to a free electoral process and the right of public employees to associate with candidates from other parties. 5 The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing; we reversed. We held that this misuse of official power over public employees . . . create[d] a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. Shakman I, 435 F.2d at 270. We concluded that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure. Id. Following the remand, the City agreed to a consent judgment, and such a decree was entered on May 5, 1972 (1972 Consent Decree). See R.174, Ex.4. 6 The 1972 Consent Decree prohibited the City from considering political activity or affiliation when making employment decisions concerning current employees. The district court retained jurisdiction to clarify and to enforce the provisions of the decree. The decree did not address whether political affiliation and activity could be considered in hiring new employees—a matter that continued to be litigated by the parties. 7 Litigation with respect to the hiring issue continued into the next decade. In September 1979, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. The district court stated that the patronage hiring practices infringed upon the plaintiffs' rights as voters and candidates because those practices gave the incumbent party an unfair advantage in elections. 8 On April 4, 1983, the court entered an order enjoining the defendants from conditioning hiring decisions on an applicant's political affiliation. The City subsequently entered into a second consent judgment on June 20, 1983 (1983 Consent Decree), with respect to the hiring issue. See R.158, Ex.A. The 1983 Consent Decree enjoined the City from considering political affiliation with respect to hiring decisions, with limited exceptions for policy-making positions. Again, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the decree, and the decree explicitly provided that an enforcement action could be initiated by any registered voter.