explaining that “[v]oters with little information about individuals seeking office traditionally have relied upon party affiliation as a guide to choosing among candidates,” but a “decline in party stability” has left Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-PL-371 | March 6, 2024 Page 20 of 41 them “less able to blame or credit a party for the performance of” its officials
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[v]oters with little information about individuals seeking office traditionally have relied upon party affiliation as a guide to choosing among candidates,” but a “decline in party stability” has left Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-PL-371 | March 6, 2024 Page 20 of 41 them “less able to blame or credit a party for the performance of” its officials
- finding that the policymaker exception applied where it was demonstrated that party affiliation was an appropriate requirement for the performance of the position, and that “the ultimate inquiry . . . is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved”
- recognizing, for example, that the governor of a state “may appropriately believe that the official duties of various assistants who help him write speeches, explain his views to the press, or communicate the legislature cannot be performed effectively unless those persons share his political beliefs and party commitments”
- stating that when determining whether political affilia *927 tion is an appropriate basis for demotion, “the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Vázquez v. Surillo-Ruiz, 76 F. Supp. 3d 381 (2015)
As such, the exception described in Branti is inapplicable to the analysis of the instant motions.
Distinguished by Furlong v. Gudknecht, 808 F.2d 233 (1986)
Yet that potential cannot remove the plaintiff from the protections of Branti where political affiliation is inapposite to the duties of the elected office and where, in any event, the chance appears remote that the plaintiff might ascend thereto.
Distinguished by Barnes v. Bosley, 745 F.2d 501 (1984)
The defendants do not contend on appeal as they did below that Brand and Elrod are inapplicable here because Roddy and Bosley were both Democrats.
Distinguished by Coalition for Sensible & Humane Solutions v. Wamser, 590 F. Supp. 217 (1984)
But Branti and Elrod are distinguishable on three grounds.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Stewart,
dissenting.
I joined the judgment of the Court in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 , because it is my view that, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, “a nonpolicymaking, nonconfiden-tial government employee can [not] be discharged . . . from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs.” Id., at 375 . That judgment in my opinion does not control the present case for the simple reason *521 that the respondents here clearly are not “nonconfidential” employees.
The respondents in the present case are lawyers, and the employment positions involved are those of assistants in the office of the Rockland County Public Defender. The analogy to a firm of lawyers in the private sector is a close one, and I can think of few occupational relationships more instinct with the necessity of mutual confidence and trust than that kind of professional association.
I believe that the petitioner, upon his appointment as Public Defender, was not constitutionally compelled to enter such a close professional and necessarily confidential association with the respondents if he did not wish to do so. *
Contrary to repeated statements in the Court’s opinion, the present case does not involve “private political beliefs,” but public affiliation with a political party.