391:
349:
in 1970, leading to a long deliberation. After the reversal of the case the plaintiffs and much of the defendants were able to enter into a consent decree on most of the pressing issues. The defendants agreed to much of the complaints and resolved to make the necessary changes. Stipulations of fact
341:
The complaint stemmed from government employees being mandated to campaign or contribute to the political campaigns of
Democratic candidates to guarantee their employment in the future. This had been a long-standing practice of Democratic politicians in Chicago who had a majority at the time. Along
353:
The court underwent a thorough test of constitutionality of political patronage and considered the interests at stake within the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. They considered the right to free association and the right to equal participation in the electoral process. The court also recognized
262:
Chicago politics had long been dominated by political patronage, or the rewarding of supporters through position and the punishment of opponents through demotion or firing. Public employees, therefore had to be careful with political allegiances; campaigning for a loser would result in demotion,
376:
After years of negotiations, both parties agree on the three "Shakman
Decrees" of 1972, 1979, and 1983 respectively. These decrees enforced the principle that it was unlawful to effect an individual's employment status one way or the other on the grounds of political patronage and allegiances.
270:
and lost. He was distressed at the level of support the incumbent
Democrats received from public employees and was, along with other plaintiffs, shocked to learn that this was often mandatory support required by the politicians as a part of the patronage system for those employees to keep their
433:
The
Shakman case helped to greatly reduce the power of political patronage among the Chicago political system and paved the way to reducing it nationwide. Although it is still likely present in politics, it is certainly practiced to a much lesser extent and much more discreetly. Patronage was
434:
generally found to be unconstitutional and contrary to the belief in fair and equal elections, employee rights, and the use of public dollars. The long deliberation resulted in much more free and open politics in regards to public employees, with the aim at reducing political corruption.
342:
with being unconstitutional, Shakman claimed that it was a burden on taxpayers since the public funds and work hours allotted to these employees was being requisitioned for campaigns. Ending political patronage, therefore, would be beneficial to the public budget and to taxpayers.
652:
361:
The defendants admitted that they in fact were given a significant electoral advantage from political patronage and were therefore consenting to negotiate some acceptable terms that
Shakman et al. could agree to.
294:. Shakman claimed that the defendants, a number of government employees and politicians, had violated the fundamental rights of a fair and equal electoral process and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
227:
38:
425:
believes that the ongoing case may soon be over, and has stated that the
Chicago government is closer than ever to negotiating a proper balance of standards that both parties agree to.
346:
291:
239:
271:
positions. Shakman argued this was a violation of employee rights, free elections, and use of public funds and was therefore in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.
110:
91:
637:
235:
627:
421:
The case has never been fully resolved. Despite the necessary negotiations the court required, they have not all been settled. However,
286:
Shakman, along with Paul M. Lurie, filed a class action suit claiming the
Democratic Organization of Cook County was in violation of the
28:
603:
278:
and unfair advantage to organized candidates over others, since employees would campaign and support the organized candidates.
642:
377:
There were of course some exceptions such as in the case for positions that had political aspects, such as policy making.
267:
647:
503:
632:
571:
301:
The
Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County and its members, including its Chairman, George W. Dunne
205:
140:
134:
120:
102:
72:
182:
176:
170:
152:
58:
128:
274:
Shakman filed a suit against the
Democratic Organization of Cook County claiming the patronage system gave
106:
589:
79:
114:
95:
319:
247:
251:
213:
331:
325:
209:
468:
553:
355:
313:
275:
164:
158:
146:
371:
307:
287:
243:
404:
Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
242:
rights. The case resulted in negotiations from 1969-1983 that brought to fruition the
621:
263:
firing, or transfer, while neutrality could result in a stagnant career advancement.
189:
422:
511:
358:
in the act of political patronage, thus incentivizing them negotiating a deal.
49:
Michael L. Shakman, et al. vs. Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al.
87:
310:, individually and as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County
231:
345:
The case was thrown out of court in 1969, but reversed and remanded by the
83:
69:
653:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois cases
27:
266:
Shakman, then an attorney, ran for a public position outside of the
228:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
39:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
76:
354:
that there was a liability that the defendants had committed a
316:, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
384:
254:. Parts of the case are still being negotiated to this day.
347:
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
201:
196:
64:
54:
44:
34:
20:
585:Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
567:Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
549:Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
223:Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
21:Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
8:
350:were filed to resolve the remaining issues.
638:Democratic Party (United States) litigation
604:"Is city ready to be free of Shakman case?"
337:The Forest Preserve District of Cook County
26:
17:
543:
541:
539:
537:
535:
533:
531:
529:
527:
525:
523:
521:
443:
290:and the equal protection clause of the
498:
496:
494:
492:
490:
488:
486:
484:
482:
463:
461:
459:
457:
455:
453:
451:
449:
447:
234:in the hiring of public officials and
226:, No. 1:69-cv-02145, is a case in the
105:(N.D. Ill. 1972); affirmed, 533 F.2d
7:
14:
389:
75:(N.D. Ill. 1969); reversed, 435
109:(7th Cir. 1976); cert. denied,
628:1970 in United States case law
1:
334:, as Treasurer of Cook County
268:Cook County Democratic Party
123:(N.D. Ill. 1979); reversed,
669:
574: (N.D. Ill. 1969).
556: (N.D. Ill. 1979).
369:
592: (7th Cir. 1970).
572:310 F. Supp. 1398
554:481 F. Supp. 1315
398:This section needs to be
328:, as Clerk of Cook County
322:, Assessor of Cook County
297:The defendants included:
25:
206:Abraham Lincoln Marovitz
473:Encyclopedia of Chicago
643:Government of Chicago
504:"The Shakman Decrees"
590:435 F.2d 267
292:Fourteenth Amendment
248:political corruption
240:Fourteenth Amendment
514:on August 26, 2013.
304:The City of Chicago
246:, largely reducing
232:political patronage
214:Ann Claire Williams
648:History of Chicago
332:Edward J. Rosewell
252:Chicago government
608:Chicago Sun Times
469:"Shakman Decrees"
419:
418:
366:"Shakman Decrees"
326:Stanley T. Kusper
219:
218:
210:Nicholas John Bua
660:
633:1970 in Illinois
612:
611:
599:
593:
587:
581:
575:
569:
563:
557:
551:
545:
516:
515:
510:. Archived from
500:
477:
476:
465:
414:
411:
405:
393:
392:
385:
356:civil conspiracy
314:Morgan M. Finley
276:unconstitutional
197:Court membership
192:(N.D. Ill. 2013)
188:920 F. Supp. 2d
185:(N.D. Ill. 1994)
179:(N.D. Ill. 1987)
173:(N.D. Ill. 1986)
167:(N.D. Ill. 1985)
161:(N.D. Ill. 1983)
155:(N.D. Ill. 1983)
149:(N.D. Ill. 1982)
143:(N.D. Ill. 1981)
137:(N.D. Ill. 1981)
125:Shakman v. Dunne
30:
18:
668:
667:
663:
662:
661:
659:
658:
657:
618:
617:
616:
615:
601:
600:
596:
583:
582:
578:
565:
564:
560:
547:
546:
519:
508:Cook FP Shakman
502:
501:
480:
467:
466:
445:
440:
431:
415:
409:
406:
403:
394:
390:
383:
374:
372:Shakman Decrees
368:
320:Thomas M. Tully
308:George W. Dunne
288:First Amendment
284:
260:
244:Shakman Decrees
236:First Amendment
186:
180:
174:
168:
162:
156:
150:
144:
138:
132:
131:(7th Cir. 1987)
118:
99:
12:
11:
5:
666:
664:
656:
655:
650:
645:
640:
635:
630:
620:
619:
614:
613:
594:
576:
558:
517:
478:
442:
441:
439:
436:
430:
427:
417:
416:
397:
395:
388:
382:
379:
370:Main article:
367:
364:
339:
338:
335:
329:
323:
317:
311:
305:
302:
283:
280:
259:
256:
217:
216:
203:
202:Judges sitting
199:
198:
194:
193:
117:858 (1976)
98:909 (1971)
66:
62:
61:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
665:
654:
651:
649:
646:
644:
641:
639:
636:
634:
631:
629:
626:
625:
623:
609:
605:
602:Brown, Mark.
598:
595:
591:
586:
580:
577:
573:
568:
562:
559:
555:
550:
544:
542:
540:
538:
536:
534:
532:
530:
528:
526:
524:
522:
518:
513:
509:
505:
499:
497:
495:
493:
491:
489:
487:
485:
483:
479:
474:
470:
464:
462:
460:
458:
456:
454:
452:
450:
448:
444:
437:
435:
428:
426:
424:
413:
401:
396:
387:
386:
380:
378:
373:
365:
363:
359:
357:
351:
348:
343:
336:
333:
330:
327:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
299:
298:
295:
293:
289:
281:
279:
277:
272:
269:
264:
257:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
215:
211:
207:
204:
200:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:844 F. Supp.
178:
175:677 F. Supp.
172:
169:634 F. Supp.
166:
163:607 F. Supp.
160:
157:560 F. Supp.
154:
151:569 F. Supp.
148:
145:552 F. Supp.
142:
139:508 F. Supp.
136:
133:508 F. Supp.
130:
126:
122:
119:481 F. Supp.
116:
112:
108:
104:
101:356 F. Supp.
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71:
67:
63:
60:
59:1:69-cv-02145
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
607:
597:
584:
579:
566:
561:
548:
512:the original
507:
472:
432:
429:Significance
423:Rahm Emanuel
420:
407:
399:
381:Ongoing case
375:
360:
352:
344:
340:
296:
285:
273:
265:
261:
222:
221:
220:
124:
100:
48:
15:
127:, 829 F.2d
55:Docket nos.
622:Categories
438:References
410:April 2024
258:Background
230:regarding
90:. denied,
65:Citations
84:7th Cir.
70:F. Supp.
400:updated
250:in the
86:1970);
588:,
570:,
552:,
113:
94:
35:Court
282:Case
238:and
165:1086
141:1059
135:1063
129:1387
121:1315
115:U.S.
103:1241
96:U.S.
88:cert
77:F.2d
73:1398
68:310
190:881
183:422
177:933
171:895
159:863
153:177
147:907
111:429
107:344
92:402
80:267
624::
606:.
520:^
506:.
481:^
471:.
446:^
212:;
208:;
610:.
475:.
412:)
408:(
402:.
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
