* From the Associated Press…

Gov. Pat Quinn has asked a federal court to reject Michael Shakman’s challenge to state hiring, saying the Chicago anti-patronage attorney has no authority to raise questions and seeks resolution that would unnecessarily disrupt government and undermine gubernatorial authority.

The Democratic governor’s request, which blames the now-imprisoned ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich for any misconduct in hiring, was filed late Friday in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

Shakman, author of a landmark 1972 court decree prohibiting political hiring in Cook County government, renewed his suit against Quinn in April. It claims the administration violated the Shakman decree and another that regulates state hiring by improperly considering politics in employment and promotion at the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Shakman wants an investigation completed and a “special master” appointed to monitor and ensure proper hiring at all agencies under the governor’s control, a move Quinn’s lawyers reject as superfluous and threatening to duties — in this case, hiring — entrusted to government officials.

* The filing is here. One of the objections made by the Quinn administration is that some of this stuff is really old…

The allegations pertaining to the Blagojevich administration are based primarily on a Chicago Sun-Times article from October 16 and 17, 2009 which detailed violations from 2003-2005. As Blagojevich was removed from office on January 29, 2009, any claims pertaining to violations under his administration would have needed to have been brought by July 29, 2009 at the very latest.

* Timeliness is also an issue with the current administration…

Plaintiffs allege that the violations pertaining to the Quinn administration arise out conduct that ended in “early 2012.” … To timely recover for such conduct, Plaintiffs would have had to bring a claim by June 29, 2013 at the very latest. Plaintiffs did not file their motion until April 22, 2014. Even assuming Plaintiffs were unaware of such conduct until the BGA report came out on August 14, 2013, Plaintiffs had until February 10, 2014 to seek relief for such claims. Plaintiffs did not contact Defendant until March 13, 2014 and did not file the most recent motion until April 22, 2014. Thus, their request for relief as to the current administration is untimely and is barred.

* The Quinn response also claims that “Plaintiffs’ request for relief with respect to those allegations in the 2009 motion has been abandoned by Plaintiffs“…

Plaintiffs filed a strikingly similar motion in 2009 to which the Governor’s Office filed a response requesting the court dismiss such request for relief. Despite the Governor’s Office filing a response requesting dismissal, Plaintiffs failed to respond, either before or after the parties’ settlement discussions, but rather let the Governor’s response linger on the docket for more than four years without taking any action. Plaintiffs now attempt to resurrect those same claims. Because Plaintiffs never responded to the Office of the Governor’s response, to the extent Plaintiffs now seek relief based on the allegations contained in their 2009 motion, such relief must be denied.

* The plaintiffs don’t have the right to pursue relief concerning hiring practices, Quinn believes…

Plaintiffs have never secured a judgment against any Governor with respect to hiring practices… because no previous Governor was a signatory to any of the other Shakman decrees, Governor Quinn is not bound by any of their terms… In sum, Plaintiffs are not seeking to enforce an existing judgment between themselves and the Governor in their plea for injunctive relief with respect to allegations about hiring practices. Instead, they attempt to avoid ever litigating this issue by bootstrapping their claim to the terms of the 1972 Consent Decree via the Court’s decision in Rutan.

* Plaintiffs don’t have standing, Quinn argues…

There is no basis to conclude that Plaintiffs are suffering a “continuing, present” harm that is “sufficiently real and immediate” to justify the extraordinary injunctive relief they now seek… As the Supreme Court has made clear, “‘[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.’”

* And there is no need for a special master…

Plaintiffs’ allegations, which are based on information and belief derived primarily from media sources, only allege violations pertaining to IDOT. Yet Plaintiffs seek a Special Master to cover all employment under the Governor within the Northern District of Illinois. The Governor oversees the vast majority of the State’s agencies and as a result, state employees. There is no basis for a Special Master to monitor all of the employment under the Governor when the allegations relate only to IDOT.

Further, as Plaintiffs allege, the OEIG commenced an investigation into the alleged wrongful practices. The OEIG has not issued its report and recommendations. To appoint a Special Master is unwarranted and, in advance of the OEIG concluding its investigation and issuing its report and recommendations, is premature.

* But the most immediate political issue is Shakman’s request for discovery. Quinn wants the court to rule on its objections before allowing discovery to proceed. The implications are obvious here. If Shakman goes nosing around the Quinn administration’s hiring practices, who knows what sort of targeted leaks could result?