Illinois spoils system lives on despite court rulings

CHICAGO -- Illinois wasn't the birthplace of political patronage, but it was supposed to be its final resting place.

Over the last 30 years, the state where politicians turned the practice into an art form prompted three of four major U.S. Supreme Court decisions that severely limit using party loyalty as a litmus test for government jobs and contracts.

Yet an ongoing federal trial involving former Gov. George Ryan's campaign operation indicates that the spoils system continues to thrive in Illinois.

"I don't believe that patronage has ever died," said Harvey Grossman, a Chicago lawyer who argued one of the Supreme Court cases. "Politics has such a tainted reputation in this state that people just believe that it's part and parcel of the process."

Last month, federal prosecutors released a 555-page list that Ryan's chief of staff, Scott Fawell, kept during the 1990s to record alleged favors, including state jobs, raises, promotions and contracts.

Few cases taken on

It is unclear whether the 10,000 favors described on the list violate the court's patronage rulings. In the decades since the first of the decisions, few lawyers have taken on patronage cases -- the only real mechanism for enforcement.

Yet the list offers a rare peek at the extent of political horse trading in the state. Congressmen, Republican officials and media heavyweights are listed as seeking favors as small as a vanity license plate.

Lawyers for Fawell, who is on trial for racketeering, argue he did nothing out of the ordinary for Illinois politics. Prosecutors say he crossed the line by diverting state workers and equipment for political use. Ryan has not been charged.

If Fawell's list was used to hand out jobs or promotions to those who helped on Ryan's campaigns, it would violate the court's decisions, said Mary Lee Leahy, a Springfield attorney who won a 1990 Supreme Court decision challenging patronage.

In that case, Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, the court ruled that government employers generally could not base hiring, transfer and promotion decisions on someone's party affiliation.

Leahy represented workers who said their attempts to get or advance in state jobs suffered because they didn't have the backing of the Republican Party. The governor at the time, James R. Thompson, was a Republican.

'Discouraging' disclosures

Leahy said the disclosures in the Fawell case made her question whether the Rutan ruling had had much effect in Illinois.

"I think the whole thing is very discouraging," she said.

The Supreme Court's first significant blow against patronage came in a 1976 Illinois case.

Elrod v. Burns challenged a new Democratic Cook County sheriff's ability to fire Republican workers in the office and replace them with Democrats.

The court said government officials could not fire someone solely based on party affiliation -- except in a handful of jobs where party loyalty was necessary to help the office function.

Even if the rulings did not wipe out patronage, they did change the way government is run in Illinois, former Sen. Paul Simon said.

When Simon was a state lawmaker in the 1950s and 1960s, government workers routinely kicked back a portion of their salaries to their political sponsors. State police officers got their jobs not through merit or fitness tests, but by being party precinct captains, he said.

"What the Fawell trial apparently shows is that we still have some abuses," Simon said. "But we are still a long way from where we were."