Government Employment Based on Political Patronage Is Banned

The Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to political patronage today, ruling that government employers generally may not base hiring, transfer and promotion decisions on someone’s party affiliation.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices said refusing to hire, transfer or promote people for politically partisan reasons in most cases violates their constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and association.

The court said partisanship may play a role in such employment decisions only when political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for carrying out a job, such as a high-level policy adviser.

“Unless these patronage practices are narrowly tailored to further vital government interests, we must conclude that they impermissibly encroach on First Amendment freedoms,” Justice William J. Brennan wrote for the court.

The decision reinstates a lawsuit by three Illinois residents against Gov. James Thompson and Republican leaders in the state. Its sweeping prohibitions apply as well to federal and local government employers.

In a landmark 1976 ruling and a 1980 sequel, the high court significantly weakened the political patronage system, sometimes called the “spoils system.”

The rulings prohibited government employers from firing anyone--even some policy-making and confidential government workers--solely because of their political party unless party loyalty is a requirement for effective performance.

But those decisions dealt only with firings.

Before today, the court never had said partisanship can play no role in hiring, transfers and promotions as well.

The court also struck down patronage powers of government employers in laying off and rehiring public employees.

A federal appeals court had upheld the Illinois patronage policy in hiring, transfers and promotions but banned such considerations in layoffs and rehirings. It said layoffs are too similar to firings.

Brennan said employee loyalty to government policies can be ensured without widespread patronage.

He was joined by Justices Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun and John Paul Stevens.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor dissented.

In the Illinois patronage case, two men and a woman who said their job status suffered because they did not vote in Republican primaries or give money to the party sued the governor, the state GOP and the heads of several state agencies.

Cynthia Rutan said she repeatedly was denied promotions to supervisory positions in the state Rehabilitative Services Department because she did not support Republican candidates.

Franklin Taylor, an equipment operator, said he was denied an Illinois Transportation Department transfer to another county because party officials opposed it.

James Moore said the state Corrections Department has refused to hire him since 1978 because he could not get the backing of key GOP leaders.