For the first time in decades, Illinois state government agencies under the purview of the governor’s office will no longer be subject to federal oversight from monitors appointed by federal judges to ensure neither the governor nor his political allies can continue Illinois’ long political tradition of using government jobs to cement and grow power.
On Oct. 3, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang formally vacated the so-called Shakman Decree over the governor’s office and agencies under the governor’s supervision.
The end of the decree came about two months after a federal appeals panel determined the decades-long monitoring of state hiring practices in the name of fighting political corruption had continued for too long and strayed too far from its original intent to hold up under constitutional scrutiny.
Michael Shakman
| Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman
The decrees had been in place since at least 1972, when plaintiff Michael Shakman and his associate, Paul Lurie, first prevailed in court on claims politically-motivated hiring practices within Illinois state government illegally favored the supporters of the party and elected officials in power, and violated the First Amendment rights of government workers by forcing them to support those in power or risk missing out on promotions, losing their jobs or not being hired at all.
Such so-called patronage hiring practices have been used through the years by power brokers like former House Speaker Michael Madigan and Chicago Alderman Ed Burke to bolster their power base and grab control of the levers of government, while allegedly enriching themselves. Federal prosecutors have indicted both Madigan and Burke on federal corruption charges.
The decrees have also encompassed various offices and agencies in Cook County, as well.
Under those decrees, federal judges in Chicago appointed so-called special masters to monitor and review state hiring decisions to ferret out instances of political discrimination in government offices in Springfield and Chicago, except for positions involving policy making. For those kinds of jobs, the courts agreed officials can take politics into account when hiring.
However, two years ago, Gov. JB Pritzker and his political ally, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, challenged the continued duration of the decrees. They argued the decrees had been in place for too long, and that the state had fixed its corrupt hiring practices.
They pointed notably to the state’s so-called Comprehensive Employment Plan, a hiring guide created first under Republican former Gov. Bruce Rauner, to argue the state had created a “durable remedy,” which the court insisted was needed before oversight could be lifted.
Pritzker’s contention that the state had ended politically-motivated hiring practices sufficient to end the decree was fiercely disputed by Shakman and Lurie, and the court-appointed special master, attorney Noelle Brennan.
While Pritzker was arguing politically motivated hiring had been fixed, the watchdogs were asking the court for permission to investigate suspect hiring practices. These included allegations that state officials were abusing the political policymaker exemptions granted under the decree to pack political hires into union-protected jobs.
Last year, Judge Chang had rejected Pritzker’s arguments, siding with Shakman and Brennan in ruling the state government still had farther to go to demonstrate it had fixed the problems that gave rise to the decrees.
In his ruling rejecting Pritzker’s request, 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 continued his quest to overturn the decrees, turning to the federal appeals court even as Pritzker’s political ally, Speaker Madigan, and several prominent members of Madigan’s political operation were indicted.
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.
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 concerning affairs about which he has claimed to have no knowledge.
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.
This year, a federal appeals panel ultimately sided with Pritzker on the question of whether the continued federal oversight of state hiring practices was warranted.
The court said it was “not naïve” concerning Illinois’ sordid history of political corruption and patronage hiring. But the judges, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, said the principles of federalism compelled them to declare an end to the Shakman decrees over the governor’s agencies.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the governor had “earned the right to make employment decisions for the state on his own.”
“We cannot let perfect be the enemy of the constitutionally adequate,” the judges wrote.
After the appellate order was posted and the mandate delivered to Chang, he formally ordered the end of the Shakman decrees.
In his final order related to those decrees, Judge Chang extended thanks on behalf of the court to Brennan and her team for their work.
The special masters have been assailed by prominent Illinois Democrats, who have claimed the court-appointees were digging for problems to investigate, so as to continue collecting paychecks from taxpayers.
“The Court extends its deepest gratitude, no doubt shared by the predecessor judges assigned to this case, to Ms. Noelle Brennan for serving as Special Master,” Chang wrote.
“Although the District Court appointed Ms. Brennan, it is ultimately the public at large that benefitted from her extraordinary efforts in assisting the Court and the Office of the Governor arrive at a durable remedy in this decades−long case. The Special Master's entire team, including her counsel, Ms. Kristi Nelson, also deserves the profound thanks of the public for their tireless work in promoting the First Amendment rights of government employees.”