Gov. JB Pritzker has continued his efforts to persuade federal judges to lift the courts’ oversight of Illinois state government hiring, practices which have been exploited by powerbrokers like indicted former House Speaker Michael Madigan, Pritzker’s one-time staunch political ally.
Last month, Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul continued to exchange legal arguments with longtime Illinois reform advocates in Chicago federal courts over the need for the court to keep in place decades-old orders requiring Illinois state government to allow court-appointed monitors to review state hiring and promotion decisions.
Pritzker and the reform advocates, attorneys Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie, are awaiting decisions from both the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang, to determine the fate of the longstanding court orders, known as the Shakman Decrees.
Most recently, at the beginning of February, Shakman and Lurie noted Pritzker and his administration have refused their repeated request to sign off on a sworn certification to the court that “the Governor’s office is unaware of evidence that such unlawful political discrimination is continuing to occur” within state agencies.
Such filings now come against the backdrop of the indictment and potential trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, who is accused of soliciting and accepting bribes as part of a criminal racketeering conspiracy that dates back at least 10 years, if not farther.
Among the charges are allegations Madigan agreed to talk with Pritzker in 2018 to help a former Chicago alderman, who was cooperating with federal investigators, to land a plum appointment on a state board. In the indictment, federal prosecutors allege Madigan told then-Ald. Danny Solis in November 2018 that he would tell Pritzker “what’s next,” after Pritzker had just won election against Madigan nemesis, former Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Pritzker had enjoyed Madigan’s full support during his 2018 election campaign to defeat Rauner. Madigan, in his dual roles as House Speaker and chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party, had led Illinois Democrats during the previous four years as they worked to block Rauner from implementing any of the reform measures he had championed, including measures pertaining to state hiring and union negotiations.
Pritzker, a billionaire, also contributed significantly to Madigan’s political campaign funds. In 2018, for instance, Pritzker transferred $7 million, through the campaign Pritzker largely funded himself, to Madigan’s operation.
Madigan, who also enjoyed strong financial support from powerful interests including labor unions and trial lawyers, would use such funds to boost his political power by engendering loyalty and obedience from political operatives and allies at all levels of state and local government in Illinois, Chicago and Cook County.
Nearly every Democrat in Illinois took advantage of some level of support and partnership from the Madigan political organization and the campaign war chests Madigan controlled, either by outright endorsement or the tightly controlled distribution of Democratic Party funds to aid election campaigns.
Federal prosecutors accused Madigan of leveraging that political power to lean on companies and individuals seeking political action, like electrical utility ComEd, to pony up bribes, in the form of favors, jobs and payoffs to Madigan’s friends and loyalists, and business for Madigan’s property tax appeal law firm, Madigan & Getzendanner.
In 2020, for instance, as reported by WBEZ, Pritzker agreed to hire at least 35 people off of a “clout list” that Madigan presented. Pritzker has asserted those individuals were not hired simply because of recommendations from the powerful House Speaker.
Pritzker has specifically denied meeting with Madigan to discuss Solis’ appointment and hiring requests.
Further, Pritzker noted he met with federal investigators last year, answering questions for about an hour concerning the Madigan investigation.
It is not known why federal investigators would seek to question the Democratic governor about affairs he has claimed to have no knowledge of.
However, U.S. Attorney John Lausch, during a press conference on Wednesday, March 2, specifically stated the indictment does not include any allegation of wrongdoing against Pritzker.
As the investigation into Madigan was ongoing, Pritzker launched his bid to remove federal oversight from state hiring in the summer of 2020.
Such hiring has also been used by political powerbrokers, like Madigan, for decades, to fill the ranks of state government with political operatives and to reward loyalists and friends with plum positions and promotions.
In moving to lift federal oversight, however, Pritzker has repeatedly contended that he believes state government under his administration no longer needs the federal court’s supervision to prevent illegal political patronage hiring and discrimination.
U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang in 2020 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.
Pritzker appealed the judge’s decision.
However, as the appeal continues, Pritzker and Shakman have continued sparring before Chang on the questions, as well.
Most recently on Jan. 14, Pritzker again asserted the state had reformed itself enough to allow it to throw off the federal oversight.
And the governor argued neither the plaintiffs nor the court’s appointed monitors can point to any real instances of political discrimination occurring recently in state hiring.
They assert the Shakman plaintiffs and court monitors are ignoring “very important changes” that have been made in reforming state government hiring practices in the past seven years. The governor contended Shakman and the court monitors are delving deeper into hiring “minutiae,” to find new reasons to ensure the federal oversight continues, all while collecting fees worth millions of dollars.
In response, Shakman and Lurie said the state may be nearing the end of the court supervision, but Springfield has not yet put in a place a “durable remedy” to prevent a quick return to patronage practices.
While the governor argues Shakman hasn’t produced evidence of continued illegal political hiring, the Shakman plaintiffs said that is because the courts have not directed or empowered the hiring monitors to conduct such discovery or investigation.
The Shakman plaintiffs said they have communicated to the governor that they would be willing to consider backing his request for vacating the decrees over state government, on the condition Pritzker or a representative of his administration agree to swear to the court that they know of no such politically motivated hiring.
To this point, however, Pritzker and his administration have refused to agree to that term. And that only further raises questions concerning the governor’s assertions about the state’s readiness to continue reforms on its own, they said.
“… The purported absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly when the Governor has the means and authority to make a formal declaration on the record through a responsible official,” Shakman and Lurie said in their Feb. 4 filing.
According to federal court records, the most recent filings in the case were filed under seal in mid-February, preventing public inspection of the documents.
Pritzker’s requests to vacate the Shakman Decrees remain pending before Judge Chang and the Seventh Circuit.