Saying Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker can’t demonstrate his administration has actually ended the illegal politically-motivated patronage hiring that has plagued Illinois’ state government for decades, a pair of Chicago lawyers have asked a federal appeals panel to reject Pritzker’s efforts to lift federal court-ordered oversight of Illinois’ hiring practices.
On Sept. 10, attorneys for longtime government reform advocates Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie filed a brief in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief responded to Pritzker’s request to the Seventh Circuit to overrule a federal judge in the tussle over whether Illinois government hiring can and should continue to be supervised by a court-appointed monitor.
The Seventh Circuit allowed a redacted version of the brief from Shakman and Lurie to be released to the public on Sept. 14.
Michael L. Shakman
| millershakman.com
“… It is the Governor’s burden to show that there are no substantial violations and that a durable remedy is in place,” Shakman and Lurie wrote in their brief. “The Governor has done neither.”
Last summer, Pritzker, through his political allies at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, launched a push in federal court to persuade judges to lift federal oversight of state employment decisions. In those filings, the governor has contended repeatedly that he believes the state has “reformed” itself and all but relegated patronage hiring to history.
Since last summer, Pritzker’s requests have been opposed, both by Shakman and Lurie, and a court-appointed hiring monitor, known as a “special master.”
Shakman and Lurie have fought in court since 1969 to impose reforms on political hiring practices in Illinois, Chicago and Cook County government. Their legal action led to the so-called Shakman Decrees, federal court orders which bar governments in Illinois from basing most hiring and promotion decisions on workers’ political allegiances. The decrees impose federal oversight on hiring practices, as well.
For government jobs which involve policymaking, the courts have agreed that political allegiances could be an appropriate consideration. A number of those jobs have been consequently exempted from court oversight.
However, in recent years, the court’s special master has identified numerous instances in which state agencies have allegedly abused those exemptions, packing political hires into allegedly “exempt,” union-protected jobs created for them, ultimately crowding out others, who may be less politically-connected, from certain jobs and advancement opportunities, among other allegedly improper practices.
U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang last year rejected Pritzker’s contentions that the state had corrected its past illegal patronage hiring practices.
Chang said he believed the state had made “significant” progress, pointing to continuing work to implement a “comprehensive employment plan” and an electronic hiring system, among other measures.
But Chang said “the message” still was “not getting across” to the managers in the agencies doing the hiring.
Pritzker appealed the judge’s decision.
Further, Pritzker claimed the reformers and hiring monitors can’t identify any “ongoing violations” of federal law in the state’s hiring practices.
In their reply to the governor, Shakman and Lurie, however, said Pritzker has missed the point.
They long ago proved the state’s hiring practices and decisions were violating federal law, they said – particularly under the administrations of former governors Rod Blagojevich and Pat Quinn.
Now, they said, it is Pritzker’s task to prove both that the corruption has ended, and there is a “durable remedy” in place to make it much more difficult for corrupt political hiring to occur again.
And Pritzker, they said, “had shown neither.”
They particularly noted, for instance, that Pritzker’s multiple court filings on the subject since the summer of 2020 have included no sworn statements from “any governmental official asserting that he or she had investigated and found no evidence that political discrimination continues.”
“Again, the Governor has the burden of proof because the Governor controls government employment and has unfettered access to and control over State employees and systems,” Shakman and Lurie said.
“If the Governor cannot muster up someone to swear that the State is not still violating the Decree, why should the Court have any confidence in his position?”
Further, Shakman and Lurie assailed Pritzker’s assertions that the decrees should be tossed because they have been in place for too long, and that the decrees are being used by the reform advocates to extend court oversight of the state into perpetuity.
They noted the decrees are in place to protect the constitutional speech and association rights of state workers, which are violated by politically motivated hiring practices.
And they said, the courts have laid out a path for the state to bring the oversight to an end.
“The Governor claims that Plaintiffs ‘resuscitated’ these proceedings or “reviv[ed]” the Decree,” Shakman and Lurie wrote. “But the Decree was very much alive throughout its existence, even if it had been ignored by consecutive Governors.
“Indeed, it was the prior Governors’ gross violations of the Decree that resulted in renewal of active litigation, not a plan by Plaintiffs to rouse a zombie.
“… The sooner the State achieves the objectives of the Decree and implements a durable remedy, the sooner the federal courts can relinquish oversight.
“But to terminate the Decree before its goals have been met and a durable remedy is in place would disregard the duty of federal courts to uphold the Constitution and ensure compliance with federal court orders,” they said.
The appeals court has not yet ruled on the matter.
Shakman and Lurie are represented in the matter by attorney Brian I. Hays, and others with the firms of Locke Lord LLP and Shakman’s firm, Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP, both of Chicago.