The Art of Patronage: Appointment Power, Incumbency Engineering, and the Illinois Secretary of State Succession
Joseph Phelan
Global Centre for Advanced Studies, Dublin; F'nAround Media, Chicago
ORCID: 0009-0008-3135-3083
Abstract
American law bans patronage as a condition of ordinary public employment. It leaves the appointment of top officials untouched. This paper argues that the gap between those two rules is not an oversight. It is the place where modern patronage now lives. The argument runs through Illinois, the state that produced the leading cases on both sides of the line. Elrod v. Burns, Branti v. Finkel, and Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois forbid hiring, firing, promotion, and transfer on the basis of party affiliation for ordinary public jobs, while the Shakman decrees policed the same practice in Chicago and Cook County for more than fifty years. None of that law touches a governor's power to appoint an interim officeholder, and none of it touches a candidate's decision to run for two offices in two elections. The live Illinois case shows why that matters. The incumbent Secretary of State is running for re-election in November 2026 and for mayor of Chicago in February 2027. If he wins both, he resigns the state office before taking the mayoral oath on May 17, 2027, the governor appoints a successor under Article V, Section 7 of the Illinois Constitution and Section 25-5 of the Election Code, and that appointee serves until a special election in November 2028, running then as an incumbent rather than a newcomer. The party that wins twice keeps an incumbent in both offices. The party that loses faces two open contests. Campaign money follows the same logic: a $19.15 million third-quarter war chest funds a two-office play, not a single race. Drawing on the patronage cases, the Illinois record of Powell, Ryan, and Blagojevich, the comparative case of California's appointed senator, and the incumbency advantage literature, the paper names the mechanism incumbency engineering and offers a public integrity framework for judging it. The claim is not that the maneuver is criminal. It is that a lawful appointment power, used this way, converts an open election into an inheritance, and that democratic accountability has no remedy for it under current law.
Keywords: patronage; appointment power; incumbency advantage; Illinois; Secretary of State; Shakman; institutional corruption; public integrity
Positionality and method
I write this as an investigative journalist, not as a candidate and not as a member of any campaign. I run F'nAround, a Chicago investigative media outlet built on public records reporting, and I am a doctoral researcher at the Global Center for Advanced Studies in Dublin. I have no affiliation with any candidate named in this paper and no financial interest in any campaign committee discussed here. My interest in the subject is the record: I have spent years filing public records requests with Illinois agencies and watching what those records show about how power is kept. That work shapes the questions I ask here, and it also sets the limit on what I claim. Nothing in this paper alleges unlawful conduct by any living person. Where a court has found unlawful conduct, I say so and cite the case. Where a campaign or its opponents have used the word patronage, I attribute the framing to them. Where an outcome has not yet happened, I label it conditional. The succession scenario at the center of Part III is prospective. It describes what the law provides if one candidate wins two elections. It has not happened yet, and it may not happen.
The method is documentary. The sources are court opinions, constitutional and statutory text, campaign finance filings as reported from Illinois State Board of Elections data, and contemporaneous press reporting, each attributed in the text. I conducted no interviews for this paper and I rely on no anonymous sources. The Illinois material is drawn in part from my own prior research, including a full deep dive on the 2027 Chicago mayoral race published by F'nAround Media in October 2026, which contains the succession analysis, the fundraising figures, and the candidate record used here. That report is cited as grey literature, not as a peer reviewed source. The argument is theoretical and legal, not statistical. It identifies a mechanism and shows that the mechanism fits the Illinois record and the comparative record. Testing how often appointed incumbents win, and by how much, is the empirical work that should follow, and Part III names it as such.
Introduction
Patronage used to be easy to see. A ward boss handed a man a job on a road crew and the man handed the ward boss his vote, his family, and his Sundays. The job was the currency and the vote was the return. Courts spent the second half of the twentieth century making that exchange illegal, and by the usual telling they succeeded. The Supreme Court held that public employees cannot be fired, hired, promoted, transferred, or recalled on the basis of party affiliation. Federal judges in Chicago policed hiring in the city and the county for five decades under decrees that bear Michael Shakman's name. The textbooks record patronage as a problem the law solved.
The textbooks are wrong, or at least they are incomplete. Patronage did not die. It moved upstairs. The law that killed the road crew job left the appointment power alone, and the appointment power is worth more than the road crew job ever was. A governor who can fill a vacant statewide office by appointment can do something a ward boss never could. He can hand a candidate not a job but an incumbency, and an incumbency is the most valuable asset in American politics. It carries name recognition, a staff, a fundraising list, and the word incumbent on the ballot. Political scientists have measured the advantage for fifty years. What they have measured less carefully is how often the advantage is manufactured rather than earned, by appointment rather than election.
Illinois is the right place to watch this happen, because Illinois produced the law on both sides of the question. The first great patronage firing case came out of the Cook County sheriff's office. The case that extended the ban to hiring came out of the Illinois governor's office. The federal decrees that policed Chicago hiring ran for more than fifty years and were only unwound in 2022 and 2023. And the Illinois Secretary of State's office, the office at the center of this paper, has produced three of the most instructive corruption cases in American state politics: a secretary who died with three quarters of a million dollars in cash in his hotel suite, a secretary turned governor convicted of selling commercial driver's licenses for bribes that went into his campaign fund, and a governor who tried to sell a United States Senate seat and called the appointment power golden on a wiretap. The office teaches the lesson because the office has always been where the money and the jobs meet.
The live case is simpler than the history and more revealing than any of it. Alexi Giannoulias is the incumbent Illinois Secretary of State, in office since January 2023 after earlier service as state treasurer and a 2010 run for the United States Senate. He is running for re-election as Secretary of State in November 2026. He is also running for mayor of Chicago in February 2027. If he wins the first race and loses the second, nothing unusual happens. He serves another term as Secretary of State. If he wins both, something happens that no voter will have voted for directly. He resigns the state office before taking the mayoral oath at noon on May 17, 2027. The governor appoints his successor. That appointee holds the office until a special election in November 2028 and runs then as an incumbent. One party, having won two elections, holds an incumbent in both offices. The alternative, two open contests, never takes place. The maneuver is lawful. That is the point. The question this paper asks is whether lawful is the same as acceptable, and what democratic accountability can do about a mechanism that the law permits and the voters never get to judge.
The paper makes three claims. First, the patronage case law draws its line in exactly the wrong place for the modern problem: it bans patronage as a condition of ordinary employment and exempts the appointments where the real power sits. Second, the Illinois record shows the same pattern repeating across a century, from jobs to contracts to appointments, with the law always one step behind the currency. Third, the succession mechanism is best understood not as patronage in the old sense but as incumbency engineering, the conversion of an open seat into an appointed incumbency, and it should be judged by the standards of public integrity rather than criminal law. The paper's contribution is the mechanism and the framework for judging it. It does not claim that any candidate has broken the law, and it does not predict any election result.
A note on language before the argument begins. I use the word patronage in two senses and I keep them apart. Patronage in the narrow legal sense means conditioning public employment on political support. That is what Elrod, Branti, Rutan, and Shakman forbid. Patronage in the broad political sense means using public office to reward allies and entrench a party. That is what the succession maneuver does. The paper's argument is that the narrow ban pushed patronage into the broad sense, and that the broad sense is now the one that matters. When opponents of Giannoulias call his dual run patronage, they are using the broad sense. When his defenders answer that the appointment is constitutional, they are using the narrow sense. Both are right on their own terms. The paper explains why both can be right and the public can still lose.
Part I. What the law actually forbids, and what it leaves alone
1.1 The First Amendment cases
The modern law of patronage starts in Cook County. When Richard Elrod won election as Cook County sheriff in 1970, he fired several Republican employees of the office. The fired employees sued, arguing that they were discharged because they were not Democrats. In Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), the Supreme Court agreed with them. Conditioning a public job on political belief, the Court held, coerces the employee's freedom of association and deters others from exercising their own rights of speech and association. The government could defend a politically motivated dismissal only by showing a compelling interest, and the interests offered, efficient government and a strong party system, did not survive that test except for policymaking employees. Elrod banned patronage firing. It left patronage hiring open, and the Court said so plainly enough that the next case was only a matter of time.
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), refined the exception. Two Republican assistant public defenders were fired by a newly appointed Democratic public defender. The Court held for the assistants and replaced Elrod's policymaking label with a functional test: the question is whether party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the office. A public defender's assistants did not meet that test. Political allegiance, the Court reasoned, would undermine rather than serve the office. Branti matters for this paper because it shows the exception narrowing even as it survives. The Court was willing to protect policymaking posts, but it refused to let the label do the work. The job itself had to require political loyalty.
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), closed the hiring question, and it did so against an Illinois governor. Governor James Thompson had imposed a hiring freeze in 1980 covering roughly 60,000 state positions, with no exceptions without his office's express permission. Applicants denied jobs, employees denied promotions and transfers, and former employees not recalled after layoffs sued, alleging that the freeze operated as a patronage system rewarding Republican supporters. The Supreme Court held that promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may not be based on party affiliation or support. Justice Brennan's opening line has become the epigraph for the whole field: to the victor belong only those spoils that may be constitutionally obtained. Four justices dissented, arguing that patronage was essential to democratic politics and the party system. The dissent is worth remembering, because it states the strongest defense of patronage plainly: parties need rewards to function, and voters benefit when a winning party can staff a government loyal to its program. The majority answered that the price, coerced political support from ordinary workers, was too high. Neither side discussed the appointment of a Secretary of State. The cases never reach that high.
The Court later extended the same logic to independent contractors in O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996). A towing company that lost its city contract after supporting the mayor's opponent could sue on First Amendment grounds. The line the Court drew, across all four cases, is consistent. Patronage is unconstitutional when it conditions a livelihood on political support. It is permitted when the position genuinely requires political loyalty to carry out an elected official's program. Everything in this paper turns on where that line falls, and on the fact that the most valuable appointments sit on the permitted side of it.
1.2 Shakman and the long unwinding
While the Supreme Court was drawing the constitutional line, a federal court in Chicago was enforcing it case by case. Michael Shakman, a civic reformer and independent candidate, filed suit in 1969 against the Democratic Organization of Cook County, alleging that patronage gave officially favored candidates a massive, government-funded electioneering advantage over independent candidates and voters. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Seventh Circuit reversed in 1970, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and had stated a claim. Negotiations followed, and on May 5, 1972, the court entered a consent decree that freed government employees from coercion and discrimination based on political considerations and permanently enjoined politically motivated firings, demotions, transfers, and other punishment. That decree became known as the Shakman decree.
The litigation did not stop there. In 1979, in Shakman IV, 481 F. Supp. 1315, the court held that conditioning government hiring on political sponsorship, affiliation, and support was itself unlawful, and attached the 1972 decree to its opinion. In 1983, in Shakman V, 569 F. Supp. 177, the court entered a hiring implementation order and a list of exempt positions, the jobs where political considerations were still allowed because they involved policymaking. The three decrees, 1972, 1979, and 1983, bound more than forty offices statewide, including the governor's office. For decades, Chicago and Cook County hiring ran under federal oversight, with a monitor, exempt lists, and litigation over who belonged on them.
The unwinding took almost as long as the enforcement. In 2014, plaintiffs alleged that the Illinois Department of Transportation was filling staff assistant positions on political considerations by hiring people into exempt positions and then transferring them into nonexempt ones. A special master concluded that the governor's office had played a key role in political hiring. The district court approved a corrective plan in 2019, and the state proposed a comprehensive employment plan and sought to exit the 1972 decree. In 2022, the Seventh Circuit vacated the consent decree as to the governor of Illinois, citing significant progress toward the elimination of political patronage. On July 6, 2023, Judge Edmond Chang terminated the remaining court oversight of hiring and promotions in the Cook County clerk's office, ending the litigation. The Shakman era lasted fifty-four years. Its end is part of this paper's argument: the decrees policed jobs, and jobs were the currency of the old machine. By the time the oversight ended, the currency had changed.
1.3 The policymaking exception as the doorway
Every patronage ban in American law has a doorway built into it, and the doorway is the policymaking exception. Elrod created it. Branti narrowed it to a functional test. Shakman codified it as an exempt list. The logic is sound as far as it goes: an elected official should be able to appoint people who share the program the voters chose. A governor cannot govern with a cabinet that opposes him. A mayor cannot run a city with department heads working for the other party. The exception exists because democratic accountability requires it. A government that cannot staff its leadership cannot carry out its mandate.
The problem is the size of the doorway and what passes through it. Exempt positions are not limited to a handful of cabinet secretaries. In a state government, the exempt list runs to hundreds of jobs, and the line between policymaking and administration is drawn by the very officials who benefit from drawing it generously. The Illinois Department of Transportation episode shows the mechanism in miniature: hire into an exempt position, transfer into a nonexempt one, and the decree is satisfied on paper while the patronage happens in practice. The same logic operates at the top of the system without any evasion at all. A Secretary of State, an attorney general, a treasurer, a comptroller: these are elected offices, not exempt jobs, but the power to fill them by appointment when they fall vacant is the same kind of power. It is exercised by one person, it is discretionary, and it is justified by the same reasoning that justifies the exception, that the government must be able to function. The difference is that the appointment of a statewide officeholder is not a staffing decision. It is a decision about who holds power, made by one elected official on behalf of millions of voters who never get to vote on it.
This is the gap the paper identifies. The law polices patronage where it is least consequential, in the hiring of ordinary workers, and permits it where it is most consequential, in the filling of high office. That is not a criticism of the courts. The courts were asked about jobs, and they answered about jobs. But the answer created an incentive. A party that wants to entrench itself no longer needs to hand out road crew jobs. It needs to control the appointment power, and the appointment power is lawful. The rest of this paper shows what that incentive has produced in Illinois, and what it is producing now.
1.4 The ethics statutes that police the edges
Illinois has built a second layer of law around the patronage problem, and it is worth describing because it shows both the ambition and the limits of reform. The State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, 5 ILCS 430, bans the solicitation or acceptance of gifts from prohibited sources, including the spouses and immediate family living with an officer or employee. Its revolving door provision, Section 5-45, bars a former officer or employee, for one year after leaving state employment, from accepting work from a person or entity if the officer participated personally and substantially in awarding that person contracts worth $25,000 or more, or in making a regulatory or licensing decision that directly applied to that person. The annual statements of economic interest, required after the Powell scandal described in Part II, force officeholders to disclose their holdings. The Election Code sets contribution limits and requires the campaign finance reports from which the fundraising figures in Part III are drawn.
These statutes police the edges of the system. They do not touch its center. The gift ban does not reach a lawful campaign contribution. The revolving door provision does not reach an appointment. The economic interest statement discloses wealth; it does not prevent its accumulation. Campaign finance law limits the size of a contribution; it does not limit the number of contributors who understand that a candidate who wins two offices can deliver two sets of appointments. The ethics statutes assume that the danger is a transaction, a gift, a job, a contract. The succession maneuver is not a transaction. It is a structure. No statute in Illinois forbids a candidate from running for two offices in two elections, and no statute forbids a governor from appointing a political ally to a vacancy. The reform literature has a name for this kind of gap, and Part V takes it up: the law bans the bribe and misses the system.
Part II. Illinois, the office that teaches the lesson
The Illinois Secretary of State's office is the right exhibit for this paper because it has been, for a century, the place where the state's politics converts into money and jobs. The office touches every driver and every vehicle in the state. It runs the driver services facilities, it issues the licenses, it registers the corporations, it keeps the state's records. It is one of the largest points of contact between ordinary people and state government, and for that reason it has always been one of the largest sources of patronage. Three secretaries, across three eras, show the pattern changing shape while staying the same underneath.
2.1 Powell and the shoebox legend
Paul Powell won a seat in the Illinois House in 1934, served as speaker in 1949, 1959, and 1961, and won election as Secretary of State in 1964. His power rested on the classic machine bargain: he delivered projects for southern Illinois and jobs for Chicago, and both regions delivered votes for him. His aphorism, that he could smell the meat cooking, was a joke about knowing when a deal was ready. When he died suddenly at sixty-eight in October 1970, his friend and executor found $750,000 in cash in his suite at Springfield's St. Nicholas Hotel, stuffed mostly in attache cases with at least one gift box from Marshall Field and Company, and another $50,000 in his Capitol office. A federal investigation concluded that Powell had skimmed much of it by awarding contracts to friends with kickback conditions. His estate, settled in 1978, was worth $4.6 million. He held $1 million in stock in horse tracks whose racing dates he set.
The legend calls it the shoebox scandal, and the legend is wrong about the container and right about everything else. The cash was not in a shoebox. It was in attache cases and a gift box. The correction matters, because it shows how a true story becomes a fable and how the fable then does the work of hiding the mechanism. The mechanism was not a box. It was a system: contracts awarded to friends, kickbacks returned in cash, racetrack stock held by the man who set the dates. Powell's death produced one reform, and it is a revealing one. Future politicians were required by law to file annual statements of economic interest. The reform disclosed wealth. It did not prevent the system that produced it. Disclosure is the reform a system chooses when it wants to look clean without becoming clean, and Illinois has chosen it repeatedly.
2.2 Ryan and Operation Safe Road
George Ryan served as Secretary of State from 1991 to 1999 and as governor from 1999 to 2003. The scandal that ended his career began in his Secretary of State's office and followed him into the governor's mansion. Operation Safe Road, a joint federal investigation, found that bribes were paid for commercial driver's licenses for unqualified truck drivers, and that the bribes were funneled into Ryan's campaign fund. The investigation began with a crash on a Milwaukee expressway in 1994 in which six children of the Willis family were killed when a semitrailer truck, driven by a man who did not understand English although federal law required proficiency, struck their minivan. When Wisconsin authorities passed along information that the driver may have paid a bribe for his license, Ryan's office squashed the internal probe and fired the investigators. Federal investigators picked it up instead.
On April 17, 2006, a federal jury convicted Ryan and his associate Lawrence Warner on charges including racketeering, conspiracy, and mail and tax fraud. On September 6, 2006, Ryan was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison and ordered to pay $603,348 in restitution, for receiving illegal cash payments, gifts, vacations, and personal services while serving as Secretary of State and as governor. He reported to prison in November 2007 and was released in July 2013. The prosecutor's summary of the case is the best one-sentence account of the old patronage machine in its mature form: Ryan steered contracts worth millions of dollars to friends and took payments and vacations in return, and when he learned that bribes were being paid for licenses, instead of ending the practice he tried to end the investigation that had uncovered it.
Ryan's case matters for this paper for a reason beyond the corruption itself. It shows what the Secretary of State's office is worth to a politician. The office does not merely administer licenses. It generates a stream of money, favors, and jobs that can be converted into a campaign fund, and the campaign fund can be converted into higher office. Ryan used the Secretary of State's office to become governor. The office was a ladder. The question Part III asks is whether the office has now become something else: not a ladder for one politician's ambition, but a relay baton passed from one officeholder to the next without the voters ever getting to judge the pass.
2.3 Blagojevich and the price of an appointment
Rod Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 promising to clean up Ryan's mess. In December 2008, federal agents arrested him on charges that he had attempted to sell the United States Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama upon Obama's election to the presidency. The governor's power to appoint a Senate successor comes from the Seventeenth Amendment, which lets state legislatures empower governors to make temporary appointments until an election is held. Blagojevich treated that power as an asset to be traded. On wiretaps, he described the appointment as golden and said he would not give it up for nothing. He was impeached and removed from office by the Illinois Senate in January 2009, by a unanimous vote. In June 2011, a federal jury convicted him on seventeen corruption counts, including the attempted Senate seat sale and the shakedown of executives for campaign donations. He was sentenced to fourteen years in federal prison. President Donald Trump commuted the sentence in 2020 and pardoned him in 2025.
Blagojevich is the bridge between the old patronage and the new one. He did not sell jobs. He tried to sell an appointment, and the price he wanted was not cash in a hotel suite. It was a cabinet post, a nonprofit leadership job, campaign money, something that would extend his power rather than merely enrich him. The sentencing judge, James Zagel, said the harm was not measured in money or property. The harm, he said, was the erosion of public trust in government. That sentence is the ethical core of this paper, and it is worth sitting with. The judge understood what the statutes miss: the damage of a corrupt appointment is not the price paid for it. It is the public's belief, once confirmed, that offices are assets to be traded rather than trusts to be held. Blagojevich went to prison because he tried to trade the appointment crudely, for personal benefit, on tape. The succession maneuver described in Part III trades nothing so crude. It trades an appointment for an incumbency, and it does so in the open, under a constitutional provision, with lawyers rather than wiretaps. That is why it is harder to see and harder to stop.
2.4 The machine adapts
Put the three cases together and the pattern is clear. Powell took cash for contracts. Ryan took bribes for licenses and turned them into campaign money. Blagojevich tried to trade an appointment for power. The currency changed in each generation, and the law followed one generation behind. Disclosure followed Powell. Prosecution followed Ryan. Impeachment followed Blagojevich. Each reform addressed the last scandal's currency and missed the next one. The Shakman decrees followed the same arc: they policed jobs, and by the time they were unwound in 2022 and 2023, jobs were no longer the main currency. The machine had moved on to appointments, contracts, and campaign finance, all of which are lawful in their ordinary forms and corrupt only in their strategic use.
The machine politics literature has described this adaptation for decades. Banfield and Wilson, in City Politics, distinguished the machine from the reform government not by whether it was corrupt but by how it organized exchange: the machine traded favors for votes in the open, while reform governments traded policy for votes and called it principle. Simpson's history of the Chicago City Council showed the same organization surviving reform after reform by changing what it traded. Allswang's study of bosses, machines, and urban voters showed that the machine's strength was never the illegality of any single exchange. It was the completeness of the network: jobs, contracts, licenses, and appointments, each reinforcing the others. The network is still there. What changed is which node matters most. In a state where hiring is policed and contracts are disclosed, the appointment power is the node with the least oversight and the highest return. That is where the modern machine does its work, and that is where this paper looks next.
Part III. The succession play, step by step
The argument so far has been historical and legal. This part is mechanical. It walks through the succession maneuver step by step, using the calendar, the statute, and the money, and it states at each step what is lawful, what is conditional, and what is merely asserted. The point of the walkthrough is to show that no single step requires breaking the law, and that the whole is nevertheless a transfer of power that no voter approves.
3.1 The calendar
The sequence begins with two elections in two different cycles. In November 2026, Illinois voters elect a Secretary of State. The incumbent, Alexi Giannoulias, is running for re-election. In February 2027, Chicago voters elect a mayor. Giannoulias is running for that office as well. The mayoral election is February 23, 2027, with a runoff on April 6, 2027, if no candidate wins a majority. The mayoral term begins at noon on May 17, 2027. A candidate who wins the Secretary of State race in November and the mayoral race in February cannot hold both offices. He must resign the state office before taking the mayoral oath.
The resignation triggers the succession rule. Article V, Section 7 of the Illinois Constitution provides that if the Secretary of State's office becomes vacant, the governor shall fill the office by appointment, and the appointee shall hold office until a successor is elected and qualified as provided by law, and shall not be subject to removal by the governor. Section 25-5 of the Election Code supplies the timing. If twenty-eight months or less remain in the term at the time of the vacancy, the appointee serves the remainder of the term. If more than twenty-eight months remain, the office is filled by a special election at the next general election, and the appointee serves until the results are certified and the person elected qualifies. A vacancy in May 2027, in a term that began in January 2027 and runs to January 2031, leaves more than twenty-eight months remaining. The special election therefore falls at the general election in November 2028. The governor's appointee serves from May 2027 to the certification of the November 2028 results, about eighteen months in office before facing voters, and faces them as the incumbent Secretary of State.
Table 1. The succession calendar, if the dual run succeeds
Date
Event
November 2026
General election for Secretary of State. Giannoulias runs for re-election.
February 23, 2027
Chicago mayoral election. Giannoulias runs for mayor.
April 6, 2027
Mayoral runoff, if no candidate wins a majority.
May 17, 2027, noon
Mayoral term begins. Giannoulias resigns as Secretary of State before taking the oath.
May 2027
Governor appoints an interim Secretary of State under Article V, Section 7 and 10 ILCS 5/25-5.
November 2028
Special election for Secretary of State. The appointee runs as the incumbent.
Every date in that table except the last two is fixed by law or by the election calendar. The last two are conditional on the first two. If Giannoulias loses either race, the sequence stops. If he wins the Secretary of State race and loses the mayoral race, he serves as Secretary of State and nothing further happens. The maneuver requires both wins. That conditionality is important, and it is also the reason the maneuver is hard to challenge. A court asked to block it before the elections would face a candidate who has not yet won anything. That is, in substance, what happened to the one legal challenge filed so far. A dual-office lawsuit against Giannoulias and two other candidates was dismissed on October 14, 2026, as not ripe. The court did not hold the dual run lawful on the merits. It held that the question was premature. Prematurity is the maneuver's shield: by the time the question is ripe, the appointment has already been made and the appointee is already the incumbent.
3.2 The arithmetic of incumbency
The payoff of the maneuver is incumbency, and incumbency is worth measuring. The political science literature has measured it since David Mayhew's Congress: The Electoral Connection in 1974, which argued that members of Congress organize their behavior around re-election, and Robert Erikson's 1971 study of the incumbency advantage in congressional elections, which found that holding office itself, apart from party and policy, adds votes. Gelman and King, in 1990, refined the measurement and showed that the advantage is real even after accounting for the quality of challengers and the partisan lean of the district. The mechanisms are familiar: name recognition, a staff that solves constituent problems, a fundraising network built over years in office, and the ballot itself, where the word incumbent signals competence to voters who know little else.
The succession maneuver manufactures all of those mechanisms without an election. An appointee who serves eighteen months before facing voters has a staff, a record, a fundraising list, and the title. The challenger has none of those. The appointee also has the governor's organization behind the appointment, which is to say the state party's organization. The special election in November 2028 is therefore not an open contest in any meaningful sense. It is a retention election for an officeholder the voters never chose, and retention elections favor the holder. The paper does not claim a specific vote margin for that election, and it does not need one. The claim is structural: the appointment converts an open seat, where two newcomers would compete on equal footing, into a defended seat, where one candidate starts with the full apparatus of the office. That conversion is the transfer of value at the heart of the maneuver, and it is accomplished without a single unlawful act.
The comparative case that proves the mechanism is ordinary, not exotic, comes from California. In December 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Alex Padilla, then California's Secretary of State, to the United States Senate to succeed Kamala Harris upon her election as vice president. Padilla was sworn in on January 20, 2021. In November 2022, he won both the special election for the remainder of the term and the general election for a full term, with about 62 percent of the vote. Nothing about Padilla's appointment was corrupt, and nothing about his election was illegitimate. He was a qualified, experienced officeholder who won a free election. The case matters precisely because it is clean. It shows that the appointment-to-incumbency pipeline works exactly as designed, even when everyone involved acts in good faith. The pipeline does not require corruption. It requires only a governor with appointment power, a vacancy, and an election calendar. Illinois has all three, and the Secretary of State succession is the same pipeline with a state office at the end of it.
3.3 The money
Money follows the same logic as the appointment, and the Illinois figures show it. Giannoulias's mayoral campaign reported $19.15 million in third-quarter 2026 filings, a sum that dwarfs every other candidate in the race and exceeds the entire war chests of most of his rivals combined. The figure comes from Illinois State Board of Elections data as reported on September 30, 2026. It is lawful money, raised under Illinois contribution limits and disclosed under Illinois law. The paper makes no claim that any contribution was unlawful, and no donor is named here as having bought anything. The argument is about what the money is for.
A mayoral campaign does not need $19.15 million in the third quarter to win a municipal election, even in Chicago. It needs that kind of money if the campaign is not only a mayoral campaign but a two-office operation: a Secretary of State re-election that must be won to set up the succession, a mayoral campaign that must be won to trigger it, and a party apparatus that must be kept whole across both. Donors who understand the succession understand that their contributions fund not one office but the transfer of two. That is the patronage premium in its modern form. In the old machine, a donor bought a contract and got a kickback. In the new machine, a donor funds a candidate and gets a party that holds incumbency in two offices instead of none. The transaction is legal, disclosed, and limited by statute. The return is structural, and it is worth more than any single contract.
The paper states this as a hypothesis about donor motives, not as a finding about any donor's intent. Donor intent cannot be read from a filing. What can be read from a filing is scale, and the scale is consistent with the two-office account and difficult to square with a single-race account. A future study could test the hypothesis by comparing the donor lists of the Secretary of State committee and the mayoral committee, and by tracking whether contributors to the first appear in the second. That study is beyond this paper's documentary method, and the paper does not pretend otherwise. The money section establishes the scale and the structural reading. The donor-level test is the next paper.
3.4 The legal challenges and their limits
If the maneuver is lawful, why has no court stopped it, and could a court stop it? The short answer is that the law provides no handle. A candidate may run for two offices in two elections; no Illinois statute cited in this paper forbids it, and the one challenge brought so far was dismissed as not ripe rather than decided on the merits. A governor may appoint an interim Secretary of State; the constitution commands it. An appointee may run in the special election; nothing disqualifies an incumbent from seeking the office. Each step is lawful, and a court that wanted to block the sequence would have to find unlawfulness in the combination rather than in any part. Courts are reluctant to do that, and for good reason: a doctrine that forbids lawful acts because they add up to an advantage would have no limiting principle. Every successful campaign adds up to an advantage.
That reluctance is the maneuver's second shield, after prematurity. The first shield means no court reaches the question before the elections. The second means no court is likely to reach it after them either, because the remedy would require undoing an appointment the constitution requires and an election the voters decided. The paper's point is not that courts should intervene. It is that courts cannot, and that the remedy, if there is one, must come from legislation or from voters who understand the mechanism. Both of those remedies require the mechanism to be visible. That is the paper's practical purpose: to make a lawful maneuver legible, so that the public can judge it on the terms it actually operates on, rather than on the terms of a patronage debate that ended in 1990.
Part IV. The comparative record
Illinois is not the only state where appointment power manufactures incumbency. It is the clearest case, because its history is the longest and its succession rule is the most explicit, but the mechanism is general. This part places the Illinois case in a comparative frame, briefly, because the comparison does two things the Illinois case alone cannot. It shows that the mechanism does not depend on Illinois corruption, and it shows that the mechanism does not depend on any single party.
4.1 The clean case, again
Padilla's case, described in Part III, deserves a second look here because it is the control case. No scandal attaches to it. Newsom appointed a sitting statewide officer, a former state senator and two-term Secretary of State, to fill a Senate vacancy. Padilla won election with about 62 percent of the vote. The appointment was praised as historic: the first Latino senator from California. The mechanism worked, and it worked for a candidate with an independent record and a broad coalition. The lesson is not that Padilla's appointment was wrong. It is that the mechanism is indifferent to merit. It delivers incumbency to the qualified and the unqualified alike, because it delivers incumbency before the voters have any say. A mechanism that works this well in clean hands will work at least as well in others, and the Illinois succession should be judged as a mechanism, not as a referendum on any one candidate's qualifications.
4.2 The historical machine
The historical comparison runs in the other direction. Tammany Hall, the New York machine that dominated the city's politics from the 1860s through the early twentieth century, traded jobs, contracts, and licenses for votes on a scale that dwarfed anything in modern Illinois. The Tweed ring's thefts from city contracts became the national symbol of machine corruption. The machine's strength, as Banfield and Wilson argued, was not that any single exchange was novel. It was that the machine organized exchange completely: every favor had a price, every price had a payer, and every payer had a vote. The reform movements that eventually broke Tammany did not break it by prosecuting individual exchanges. They broke it by changing the structure: civil service rules that took jobs out of the machine's hands, ballot reforms that took nominations out of its control, and direct primaries that took candidate selection away from the back room.
The parallel to the present is exact in one respect and instructive in another. The reformers of the civil service era understood that patronage is a structure, not a transaction, and they attacked the structure. The patronage case law of the 1970s through the 1990s did the same for public employment. But no reform has attacked the appointment structure, because the appointment structure looks like ordinary government. A governor appointing a Secretary of State looks like administration. It is administration. The paper's claim is that administration, repeated across vacancies and elections, becomes entrenchment, and that entrenchment is the modern form of the machine. The machine no longer needs a back room. It has a constitutional provision.
4.3 A pattern, not a person
The paper resists the temptation to make this story about one candidate, and the comparative record is why. Governors of both parties appoint interim officeholders. Appointed officeholders of both parties run as incumbents and usually win. The Seventeenth Amendment itself, which gives governors the power to make temporary Senate appointments, was written on the assumption that appointments would be caretaker acts, brief and neutral, until the voters could speak. In practice, appointments have become auditions for the office, and the appointee's campaign begins the day the appointment is announced. The Illinois Secretary of State succession is distinctive only in that it is planned rather than accidental: the vacancy is not caused by death or resignation for unrelated reasons, but by a candidate's own decision to seek a second office. Planning does not make it unlawful. It makes it visible, and visibility is what allows analysis. The paper's comparative claim is modest: where appointment power exists, incumbency engineering follows, and Illinois in 2026 and 2027 is the case where the engineering is most legible.
Part V. An ethics framework: public integrity
The paper has argued that the succession maneuver is lawful and that the law cannot stop it. That leaves the question the law cannot answer: is it right? This part offers a framework for answering that question, drawn from public administration ethics, and it addresses the corporate social responsibility framing directly, because that framing is where the paper began and where it risks confusion.
5.1 The corporate analogy, and its limits
Corporate social responsibility, in Archie Carroll's classic formulation, holds that a firm owes duties beyond profit to its shareholders: legal duties, ethical duties, and discretionary duties to the wider community of stakeholders. Milton Friedman answered that a firm's only social responsibility is to increase its profits within the law, and that anything else is theft from the shareholders. The debate has run for fifty years, and it has a precise analogue in public office. A party, like a firm, can argue that its only duty is to win within the law, and that anything lawful it does to keep power serves the voters who chose it. An officeholder, like a corporate manager, can argue that the office is a trust held for stakeholders broader than the party, and that using the office to entrench the party betrays the trust even when no law is broken.
The analogy has a limit, and the paper states it plainly. A firm serves customers who can leave. A government serves citizens who cannot. A shareholder can sell. A voter in a one-party jurisdiction cannot opt out of the government's power. That asymmetry is why the public version of the responsibility debate is more demanding than the corporate version, not less. Mark Moore's account of public value makes the same point from the other direction: public managers create value not by satisfying a market but by serving purposes the public has authorized, and legitimacy depends on the public recognizing those purposes as its own. An appointment that the public never authorized, made under a rule the public never debated, strains that legitimacy even when it follows the letter of the law. The framework below applies that standard to the succession maneuver.
5.2 Three tests
The framework has three tests, each drawn from the public administration ethics literature. The first is democratic equality. John Rohr's account of bureaucratic ethics rests on the idea that public servants answer to the constitutional order, not to the regime that appointed them, and that the regime's convenience does not override the citizen's equal standing. The succession maneuver fails the equality test in a specific way: it gives one party's candidate eighteen months of incumbency that no other candidate can earn, and it gives that candidate the title on the ballot. Voters in November 2028 will not choose between equals. They will choose between an incumbent and a challenger, and the incumbent's advantage was conferred by appointment, not by any prior vote for that person in that office.
The second test is accountability. Terry Cooper's responsible administrator is one who can give an account of a decision to the public affected by it, in terms the public can accept. The succession maneuver has no moment of account. The governor's appointment is discretionary and unreviewable. The candidate's decision to run for two offices is a campaign strategy, not a public decision subject to hearing or comment. The voters who elect the Secretary of State in November 2026 do not vote on whether the winner will resign in May 2027, and the voters who elect the mayor in February 2027 do not vote on who will succeed to the state office. No election in the sequence asks the question the sequence answers. Accountability requires a decision point where the public can say no, and the sequence has none.
The third test is impartiality. An officeholder who owes the office to a governor's appointment owes the governor, or at least owes the appearance of owing the governor, and the appearance matters as much as the debt. The interim Secretary of State will run in 2028 needing the governor's organization, the governor's donors, and the governor's endorsement. The decisions made in the eighteen months of interim service, on contracts, on facilities, on enforcement, will be made by an officeholder whose political future depends on the person who appointed him. The ethics statutes described in Part I police gifts and revolving doors. They do not police gratitude, and gratitude is the currency of appointments. The impartiality test does not require proof that any decision was bought. It requires only the recognition that the structure makes impartiality harder to achieve and harder to believe, and that belief is itself a public good.
5.3 Institutional corruption, decoupling, and the author's own program
Lawrence Lessig's account of institutional corruption gives the framework its name for what the maneuver is. Institutional corruption, in Lessig's account, is influence that is legal, or even currently ethical, that diverts an institution from its purpose or weakens its ability to achieve that purpose. The succession maneuver fits that definition without stretching it. The purpose of electing a Secretary of State is that voters choose who holds the office. The maneuver diverts that purpose by inserting an appointed holder between two elections, and it weakens the voters' ability to choose by giving the appointed holder the advantages of incumbency. Nothing illegal happens. The institution is nevertheless diverted from its purpose, and that diversion is the corruption the paper names.
The mechanism also fits the institutional theory this author's program has developed elsewhere. Meyer and Rowan's account of decoupling describes organizations that adopt formal structures for legitimacy while their actual practice follows a different logic: the formal structure says election, the practice says appointment, and the two are decoupled so that each can be defended on its own terms. Bromley and Powell's extension of decoupling to policy and practice fits the succession rule precisely: the policy says voters elect the Secretary of State, the practice says the governor appoints one, and the gap between policy and practice is maintained by the claim that the appointment is merely interim. My own work on decoupling in licensed cannabis markets made the same point about formal compliance and actual control, and my work on oversight abstention showed institutions deferring action while power consolidated elsewhere. The succession maneuver is the same pattern in a new setting: formal compliance with the election rule, actual control through the appointment rule, and a gap between the two that no one is responsible for closing.
The framework also connects to the selective protection argument I developed in a companion paper: that institutions in regulated markets shield favored actors while exposing others, and that the shield is often lawful. Incumbency is a shield of the same kind. It protects the holder from competition, not by banning challengers but by raising the cost of challenging. The ethics question is the same in both settings: when a lawful mechanism systematically favors one side, at what point does the system stop being a neutral arena and become a machine for reproducing its own winners? The paper does not answer that question with a threshold. It offers the three tests as the way to ask it, case by case, and it finds that the Illinois succession fails all three.
5.4 What would fix it
A paper that names a problem should name the remedies, even briefly, and the remedies here are legislative, not judicial. Four are worth listing, as options rather than as a platform. First, a resignation-to-run rule: a candidate for a second office must resign the first before filing for the second, so that voters in the first election know the seat will be vacant. Several states have versions of this rule, and its absence in Illinois is what makes the dual run possible. Second, a shortened interim period: require the special election at the next available election rather than the next general election, so that the appointee serves months rather than eighteen months. Third, confirmation: require the state senate to confirm an interim appointment, so that the appointment has at least one public moment of account. Fourth, a bar on the appointee running in the special election, so that the appointment is genuinely caretaker rather than an audition. Each remedy has costs, and each would be contested by the party that benefits from the current rule. The paper lists them to show that the problem is soluble, not to pretend that any of them is likely. The likeliest outcome is that the maneuver proceeds, the appointee runs as an incumbent, and the public learns about the mechanism only after it has worked. That is why the paper exists.
Conclusion
Patronage was never really about jobs. Jobs were the currency of a particular era, and the law of that era banned the currency. The art of patronage, in every era, is the same: find the point in the system where one person's discretion becomes another person's advantage, and use it before the law catches up. In the nineteenth century, the point was the hiring hall. In the twentieth, it was the contract and the license. In the twenty-first, it is the appointment, and the most valuable appointment is the one that carries incumbency with it.
The Illinois succession maneuver is the art in its current form. It is lawful. It is visible, once you know where to look. It converts an open election into an inheritance, and it does so with a constitutional provision, a statute, a calendar, and a war chest. The law cannot stop it, because the law permits each step. The voters cannot stop it, because no election in the sequence asks the question the sequence answers. The only thing that can stop it is a public that understands the mechanism and demands a rule against it, and a public cannot demand a rule against a mechanism it has never been shown.
That is the paper's wager: that showing the mechanism is enough to start the argument, and that the argument is worth having before November 2028 rather than after it. The succession has not happened yet. The dual run may fail. The governor may appoint a caretaker who declines to run. The appointee may lose. Any of those outcomes would moot the specific case, and none of them would moot the mechanism. The mechanism will still be there, in Article V, Section 7 and Section 25-5, waiting for the next candidate who sees what it can do. The art of patronage does not retire when a practitioner loses. It waits for the next practitioner who understands it. This paper is an attempt to make sure the public understands it first.
Appendix A. The patronage cases
Table 2. The cases and decrees that define the legal line
Authority
Holding
What it leaves alone
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)
Patronage dismissals violate the First Amendment, except for policymaking employees.
Patronage hiring.
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980)
The exception turns on whether party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the office.
Positions that genuinely require political loyalty.
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)
Hiring, promotion, transfer, and recall may not be based on party affiliation for low-level employees.
Policymaking appointments; elected offices; interim appointments.
O'Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996)
The patronage ban extends to independent contractors.
Appointments to office.
Shakman decrees, 1972, 1979, 1983 (N.D. Ill.)
Political hiring, firing, demotion, and transfer barred in Chicago and Cook County, with exempt lists.
Exempt policymaking positions; appointments to elective office.
Ill. Const. art. V, Sec. 7; 10 ILCS 5/25-5
Governor fills a vacant Secretary of State office by appointment; special election follows if more than 28 months remain.
The appointee's candidacy in the special election.
References
Allswang, J. M. (1986). Bosses, machines, and urban voters (Rev. ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Associated Press. (2022, November 8). Padilla keeps California Senate seat in Democratic column.
Banfield, E. C., & Wilson, J. Q. (1963). City politics. Harvard University Press.
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980).
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483-530.
Capitol News Illinois. (2025, May 2). Former Gov. George Ryan dead at 91; remembered for corruption conviction, halting death penalty.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Cooper, T. L. (1990). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role. Jossey-Bass.
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).
Erikson, R. S. (1971). The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3(3), 395-405.
Focal News. (2026, September 30). Third-quarter campaign finance reports [Illinois State Board of Elections data].
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
Gelman, A., & King, G. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142-1164.
Grimm, A. (2023, July 7). With little fanfare, Shakman era ends as Cook County clerk's office is released from court oversight of hiring. Chicago Sun-Times.
Harvard Law Review. (2023). Shakman v. Pritzker. Harvard Law Review, 136.
Ill. Const. art. V, Sec. 7.
Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, lost: How money corrupts Congress and a plan to stop it. Twelve.
Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
Meisel, H., & Fox, B. (2025). Former Illinois governor Blagojevich receives pardon. Capitol News Illinois.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
NPR Illinois. (2020, December 22). California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to replace Harris in U.S. Senate.
O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996).
Phelan, J. (2026). Ceremonial compliance: Decoupling and the maintenance of control in licensed cannabis markets. Preprint, ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29725.47848
Phelan, J. (2026). Chicago mayoral race deep dive report. F'nAround Media.
Phelan, J. (2026). Equity in form, exclusion in function: Competitive decoupling, regulatory scarcity, and the Illinois cannabis market. Preprint, ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14711.18085
Phelan, J. (2026). Reconciliation testing: A public-records methodology for auditing institutional policy coherence. Preprint, ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18066.62403
Phelan, J. (2026). The nonintervention paradox in professional regulation during pending litigation. Preprint, ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33166.11843
Phelan, J. (2026). The Pritzker legacy: Protectionism and selective enforcement in America's two-tier cannabis markets. Working paper.
Phelan, J. (2026). The race to run Chicago. F'nAround Media.
Phelan, J. (2026). When the state knows but the state does not know: Regulatory knowledge fragmentation, interagency information boundaries, and the production of incomplete administrative knowledge. Preprint, ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21422.06720
Phelan, J. (2026). When the state speaks with multiple voices: Institutional policy incoherence, child-protection governance, and the fragmentation of meaning in Illinois cannabis regulation. Preprint, ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16303.70565
Rohr, J. A. (1978). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. Marcel Dekker.
Royko, M. (1971). Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago. Dutton.
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 310 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1969).
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970).
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 356 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill. 1979).
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 569 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
Simpson, D. (2001). Rogues, rebels, and rubber stamps: The politics of the Chicago City Council from 1863 to the present. Westview Press.
Star-Herald. (n.d.). Southern Illinois home of Paul Powell, the 'Shoebox Scandal' politician, could soon be sold. https://www.starherald.net/southern-illinois-home-paul-powell-shoebox-scandal-politician-could-soon-be-sold-0
U.S. Const. amend. XVII.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General. (2006). Operation Safe Road: Former Illinois Governor sentenced to 6 years in prison and ordered to pay $603,348 in restitution.
5 ILCS 430/5-45 (revolving door prohibition).
5 ILCS 430/10-10 (gift ban).
10 ILCS 5/7-68 (nominations for special election).
10 ILCS 5/25-5 (vacancies in elective executive offices).
20 ILCS 415 (Personnel Code).