Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 21, 1990 TAG: 9006210528
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A/1 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
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 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.
The court today 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.
Brennan was joined by Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented.
In a dissenting opinion, Scalia wrote, "Today, the court makes its constitutional civil-service reform absolute, extending to all decisions regarding government employment."
In the Illinois 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.
They sued for more than $1 billion in damages. Their suit also seeks to shift control of the state employment system to a court-appointed federal receiver.
Lawyers for Thompson and state GOP leaders argued that hiring political allies stimulates good government because the employee is likely to appreciate the job and, in turn, serve the public well.
by CNB