Abstract

Harold Washington, late Mayor of Chicago, liked to say that he had stomped on grave of patronage, that he went to its grave, jumped up and down and called out: Patronage, patronage! Are you alive? And didn't answer. It is dead, dead, dead.' In fact, Harold Washington may have won final battle against Cook County Democratic Party's legendary army, but as Mayor himself acknowledged, victory could not have occurred had it not been for a series of events set in motion by a littleknown Chicago lawyer named Michael Shakman. Also, victory extended only to Chicago's traditional political-machine practices; new forms of political rewards were utilized by Mayor Washington to sustain his power base. In 1969 Michael Shakman became a candidate for delegate to Constitutional Convention being called to revise Illinois Constitution. With bachelor's and master's degrees in political science, a law degree from University of Chicago, and service on Chicago Bar Association's special committee preparing for convention, Shakman was well qualified for delegate's post. However, running as an independent in Chicago, even in liberal University of Chicago Hyde Park area, Shakman did not have a chance. He found he was competing against candidates backed by Democratic machine's patronage army. He reported that many people with city jobs told me they would gladly vote for me, but they couldn't. They had to support party choices and work for them. They weren't free. 92 Unable to defeat machine at polls, Shakman and a friend, Paul M. Lurie, filed a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of Chicago's system. They argued that their rights as candidates and voters were effectively denied when public employees were required to work for machine candidates and to contribute a portion of their salaries to machine war chest. In this situation, outs-independents and Republicans-had little chance against ins. Although suit was dismissed by federal judge who first heard it, a long-time associate of Mayor Richard J. Daley, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed district judge, ruling that the interest of candidates in an equal chance and interests of voters in having an equally effective voice are rights

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call