Full opinion text
OPINION BUA, District Judge. This is a class action brought under the first amendment, the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, challenging the patronage practices of the regular Democratic and Republican Party organizations in most of the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs are independent candidates, voters, and taxpayers. The defendants include various government officers at the state and local levels, local government entities, and local organizations and officials of the two major political parties. Plaintiffs’ principal theory is that the use of state and local government patronage power to coerce political support for the regular Party organizations and their candidates violates independents’ rights to fair and equal participation in the electoral process. By way of redress, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. This case has a long history in this court. A 1969 dismissal of this action by Judge Marovitz was reversed by the Seventh Circuit in 1970. Following that reversal, plaintiffs entered into a consent decree with many of the Democratic and Republican defendants. The consent decree resolved most of the issues as to those defendants. Stipulations of fact were then filed as to (1) the remaining issues between plaintiffs and the Democratic defendants who are parties to the consent decree, and (2) all issues between plaintiffs and the Democratic defendants who are not parties to the consent decree. These matters are now before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Shakman is a resident of the City of Chicago and the County of Cook. Running in his home district, Shakman was an independent candidate in the November, 1969, election for delegates to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention. At the time of that election, plaintiff Lurie was a resident of the same district. Lurie was one of those voters who supported Shakman’s candidacy. In October, 1969, the plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action, attacking the patronage practices of the regular Democratic Party organization in Chicago and Cook County. Those named as defendants included the City and its Mayor, various County officers, the Democratic County Central Committee, and the Democratic Organization of Cook County. The primary factual allegations of the original complaint may be summarized as follows. The regular Democratic Party organization has long enjoyed a position of strong dominance in Chicago and in Cook County as a whole. This position has allegedly given the Democratic County Central Committee and the Democratic Organization of Cook County a great deal of control over the various offices, departments, and agencies of the City, the County, and many of the suburban political entities located within the County. These government offices, departments, and agencies employ thousands of persons who are not selected on a merit basis and are not protected by statute from arbitrary discharge. Many are even employed on “temporary” terms which require that their employment be renewed every several months. At the time the complaint was filed, most of these non-protected employees were required, in order to obtain their government jobs, and in order to keep those jobs or to avoid some form of job-related discipline, to have the “sponsorship” of some appropriate individual connected with the Democratic Party organization. These employees are referred to as “patronage employees.” In order to secure and maintain the necessary sponsorship, patronage employees were allegedly required to contribute or promise to contribute and to do or promise to do political work for the Democratic organization and/or its candidates. According to the complaint, patronage employees were often required to do involuntary political work on public time, or to take time off their government jobs to do such work. Thus, using governmental power and, directly or indirectly, public funds, the defendants allegedly control by coercion the political behavior of patronage employees. This enables the defendants to generate a massive political effort in favor of their organization and its candidates. The end result, plaintiffs claim, is a substantial electoral advantage for regular Democratic Party candidates, with a corresponding disadvantage to opposing candidates and voters. Defendants’ patronage practices were alleged to infringe, inter alia, (1) the rights of plaintiff Shakman, as an independent candidate, to associate with actual and potential supporters and to be free from invidious discrimination, (2) the rights of both plaintiffs, as independent voters, to associate and to cast their votes effectively in an electoral process free from substantial partisan interference, (3) the rights of both plaintiffs, as taxpayers, to be free from coerced political contributions to the Democratic Party organization and its candidates, and (4) the rights of the patronage employees to speak, vote, and associate. In addition to other relief, plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction in effect forbidding the use of any political considerations in employment practices of the government defendants. The original complaint consisted of six counts. Counts I and IV sought relief on behalf of plaintiff Shakman and all other independent candidates similarly situated, including those in future elections. Counts II and V sought relief on behalf of both plaintiffs and all other independent voters similarly situated. Counts III and VI sought relief on behalf of both plaintiffs and all similarly situated taxpayers. Counts I, II, and III alleged the direct liability of each of the defendants for every wrong of which plaintiffs complained. Counts IV, V, and VI were corresponding counts alleging conspiracy liability. Shortly after the complaint was filed, all of the defendants moved to dismiss it, raising a variety of arguments. Judge Marovitz granted these motions. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 310 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1969). Judge Marovitz’s dismissal was based on the twin grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and that the allegations of the complaint were conclusory. Regarding standing, the court found that plaintiffs as candidates, voters, and taxpayers, could not assert the constitutional rights of patronage employees. 310 F.Supp. at 1401. Turning to the allegations that plaintiffs’ own rights have been violated, the court reasoned that any violations of plaintiffs’ own rights were merely derivative of the alleged violations of the rights of patronage employees. Id. In view of this disposition, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether plaintiffs’ claims presented non-justiciable political questions. 310 F.Supp. at 1400. On appeal from the dismissal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970). While plaintiffs’ appeal from Judge Marovitz’s order was pending, the November, 1969, delegate election took place. Shakman was defeated by 623 votes. A regular Democrat and an independent were elected delegates in the 24th senatorial district. After observing that these circumstances did not moot the case, the court of appeals examined and rejected the grounds for dismissal relied upon by the district court. As to standing, the court found no need to decide whether plaintiffs could assert the rights of patronage employees, or whether plaintiffs’ interests as taxpayers would alone be sufficient to confer standing. Instead, the court simply stated that insofar as plaintiffs sought redress for injuries to their own interests as candidates and voters and the interests of others similarly situated, standing, per se, was no obstacle. 435 F.2d at 269. Also, while agreeing that some parts of the complaint were conclusory and reflected questionable legal analysis, the court concluded that “the averments concerning the operation of the patronage system and the disadvantage it causes to candidates and voters who attempt to use the election process to change the direction of government are factual and give adequate fair notice of the claim asserted.” 435 F.2d at 270. The court then addressed two remaining questions of crucial importance: whether the alleged disadvantages to the interests of independent candidates and voters constituted a deprivation of any right or rights secured by the constitution, and whether the case was for any reason non-justiciable. In considering the status of plaintiffs’ interests, the court referred to a number of Supreme Court decisions dealing with inequalities in election procedures, e. g., Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). These cases were found to support the proposition that both a candidate’s rights to an “equal chance” and a voter’s right to an “equally effective voice” are entitled, under the equal protection clause, to protection from invidious official discrimination. The court recognized that in the present case these rights were allegedly impaired in a different manner than in the election procedure cases. Nevertheless, it found those cases to be controlling: We acknowledge that the decisions just referred to involved mechanical aspects of the election process: e. g., the right to cast a vote, a candidate’s place on the ballot, and equal size districts entitled to a representative. The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the case was nonjusticiable: One may foresee that in the areas of proof, and devising relief if the claims be proved, care will be required in order to distinguish between compelled and voluntary political support by public employees. Except to the extent some statute validly restricts political expression or activity by public employees, such individuals enjoy the same right of political association and expression on their own time, as anyone else. We do not view possible difficulties of the sort just mentioned as demonstrating a “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” the case or as requiring, at the pleading stage, a decision that plaintiff’s claim is not justiciable. 435 F.2d at 271. After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971), settlement negotiations began. Several months later, all parties agreed, on certain conditions, to the entry of a consent decree. A copy of the proposed decree was tendered to the court in October, 1971. In essence, the decree purported to free those already hired as government employees from all coercion to make political contributions or to do political work, and from any form of employment discrimination based on political considerations. In a letter which accompanied the consent decree, the parties set forth the agreed preconditions to its entry. First, plaintiffs were to arrange to have the operative terms of the agreement apply as well to the Republican Governor’s patronage in the Northern District of Illinois, and to the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of Cook County. Second, the consent decree was to be approved by the court as a settlement under Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P. Pursuant to their agreement, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding counts VII and VIII. These counts contain' allegations analogous to those in the original six counts, but directed toward the patronage practices of the regular Republican Party organization in the Northern District of Illinois outside the City of Chicago. Those named as defendants in counts VII and VIII include various state government officers, the Republican State Central Committee and its Chairman, the Republican County Central Committee for each of the eight counties then in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and various government officers and Republican Party officials in the subject counties. Many of the Republicans, including the Governor and the Chairman and other members of the Republican County Central Committee of Cook County agreed to be bound by the terms of the proposed consent decree. All of the Democratic defendants, except Cook County Sheriff Elrod and the Chicago Park District, agreed to the terms of the consent decree. The court then certified classes of independent candidates, independent voters, and certain taxpayers on each of the eight counts of the amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), notice of the proposed consent decree was given. In April, 1972, a hearing was held as to the propriety of the decree. Finally, on May 5, 1972, the court approved the proposed consent decree, and entered it. The May 5, 1972, consent decree is attached as an appendix to this opinion. In its central provisions, the decree enjoined the defendants, their successors and agents, from “conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any. political reason or factor,” and from “knowingly causing or permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment.” Further, the decree specifically declared that “compulsory political financial contributions by any governmental employee, contractor or supplier” and “all compulsory or coerced political activity by any governmental employee” were prohibited, and that “once hired, a governmental employee is free from all compulsory political requirements in connection with his governmental employment.” However, the decree expressly affirmed the rights of government employees to engage, voluntarily and on their own time, in any lawful political activity. Finally, the decree stated that the court retained jurisdiction to determine, among other things, whether political sponsorship or other political considerations can lawfully be taken into account in the consenting defendants’ hiring practices, and what further remedies or implementing procedures might be appropriate to enforce the terms of the decree. Following entry of the consent decree, the various Democratic and Republican defendants who were not parties to the decree filed motions to dismiss. Judge Marovitz granted one of these motions in part. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 356 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ill. 1972). After Judge Marovitz ruled on the motions to dismiss,, the plaintiffs and the two Democratic defendants who were not parties to the consent decree, Cook County Sheriff Elrod and the Chicago Park District, negotiated stipulated statements of fact regarding all issues remaining in the case. Subsequently, the Democratic defendants who were parties to the consent decree began to negotiate with plaintiffs in an effort to resolve without trial the factual issues relevant to their remaining dispute over hiring practices. The negotiations continued until the summer of 1977. At their conclusion, the following defendants submitted agreed sets of responses to requests to admit: 1. The Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County and its members, including its Chairman, George W. Dunne, 2. The City of Chicago, 3. George W. Dunne, individually and as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, 4. Morgan M. Finley, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 5. Thomas M. Tully, then the Assessor of Cook County, 6. Stanley J. Kusper, as Clerk of Cook County, 7. Edward J. Rosewell, as Treasurer of Cook County, 8. The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, through its President, George W. Dunne. Particular stipulations are discussed in greater detail below, see pp. 1342-1344, 1345 — 1349 infra, but the court will outline their scope here in order to facilitate full understanding of the legal issues. The parties stipulated that in each ward of the City of Chicago and in many townships in Cook County there is a regular Democratic organization. The ward or township Democratic Party Committeeman is normally the head of the local organization, although certain regular organizations have separate heads in wards or townships controlled by “independents.” The heads of the ward and township organizations sponsor candidates for public jobs with the City, Cook County, various County officers, the Forest Preserve District, and the Park District. Preference in the hiring of employees for over 20,000 positions in these agencies is given to persons who have the sponsorship of a local organization head. Indeed, public notice of the availability of these jobs is not normally given. Usually, job applicants can only obtain Democratic sponsorship by having performed political precinct work or by promising to perform such work for candidates endorsed by the sponsor. Applicants will not normally be sponsored if they have been a worker for any political group opposed to the regular Democratic organization, although such persons are occasionally sponsored if they agree to switch political affiliations and work to support the regular Democratic organization. The sponsorship is usually communicated to the employing agency by means of a letter. There are, on the average, over 250 governmental employees per ward in the City who were sponsored by the regular Democratic- organization for their job. Since the City wards average about sixty precincts per ward, there are, on the average, about four patronage government employees in each precinct in the City. A significant number of these persons do political work on behalf of persons supported by sponsoring regular Democratic organization officials. Most importantly, the defendants admit that the political precinct work done by these patronage workers “helps elect candidates supported by the various members of the Democratic County Central Committee.” They also admit that “[t]his is one of the purposes of giving the preference in hiring.” E. g., Response of City of Chicago to Request for Admission, at 3. After the stipulations were completed; the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against two groups of Democratic defendants: (1) the “consenting defendants,” consisting of the eight defendants who filed agreed answers to requests to admit, including the named individuals in their individual as well as official capacities, and Michael A. Bilandic, then mayor of Chicago, in both his individual and official capacities, and (2) the “non-consenting defendants,” Cook County Sheriff Richard Elrod and the Chicago Park District. Plaintiffs’ motion seeks determinations of liability as to the hiring practices of the consenting defendants and as to the full range of politically motivated employment practices of the non-consenting defendants. Plaintiffs ask that an injunction similar to the consent decree be entered immediately against the non-consenting defendants. They suggest, though, that the question of appropriate relief as to the defendants’ hiring practices should be left for “subsequent resolution.” In support of their motion, plaintiffs rely on the responses to requests to admit and the stipulations of fact, as well as certain affidavits and oral testimony given at prior enforcement proceedings in this action. Both the consenting and non-consenting defendants have also filed motions for summary judgment, supported by additional affidavits and other evidentiary materials. The stipulated admissions, affidavits, and testimony of the parties remove from the case all issues of material fact. Therefore, the court enters this opinion as a general discussion of the rationale for its decision on the ultimate issues of the case as raised by the pending motions for summary judgment. See 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2724, at 497-98; Munoz v. Internationa] Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, 563 F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1977); Aluminum Co. of America v. Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 674, 688 (N.D.Ill.1972), aff’d, 486 F.2d 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1113, 94 S.Ct. 843, 38 L.Ed.2d 739 (1973). II. PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARTIES DO NOT CONTROL THIS CASE Under normal procedures, the court would now evaluate the factual record in light of the legal standard set out in the court of appeals’ remand opinion. It would scrutinize that record to determine if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . [if] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); see, e. g., Cedillo v. International Association of Bridge Workers, 603 F.2d 7, 9 (7th Cir. 1979). Both parties claim that upon completing this task, the court will find that they are entitled to summary judgment. Both the defendants and the plaintiffs, though, also urge the court to consider a preliminary argument. The defendants argue that the Supreme Court’s decisions invoking the principles of comity and federalism show that this court must refrain from granting the plaintiffs any relief. The plaintiffs state that the Supreme Court’s decision in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), which outlawed political patronage firing practices, is directly applicable to the facts of this case and requires the court to rule in the plaintiffs’ favor. Each side says that if the court rules in its favor on its claim, the court need not reach the more difficult questions required by the normal approach. A. The Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action Is Not Impermissibly Inconsistent With the Principles of Federalism and Comity The defendants, in their cross-motions for summary judgment, claim that the plaintiffs’ cause of action impermissibly interferes with certain interests in federalism and comity recognized by recent Supreme Court cases. See, e. g., Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); Mayor v. Educational Equality League, 415 U.S. 605, 94 S.Ct. 1323, 39 L.Ed.2d 630 (1974); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 614 (1974). They claim that granting the plaintiffs any relief would impermissibly interfere in the ongoing conduct of state government and violate fundamental principles of our federal system. The court believes this argument is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the issues of standing, justiciability, and the existence of a political question. Those issues were decided against the defendants by the court of appeals in the Shakman opinion, 435 F.2d 267, 270-71 (7th Cir. 1970), and that decision is the law of the case. In any event, the Supreme Court’s decision in Elrod v. Burns, see pp. 1327-1328, infra, clearly establishes that illegal patronage practices can be challenged in court, and that the court has authority to grant relief to the plaintiffs, where appropriate, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 351-53, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); id., at 377 n.1, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (Powell, J., dissenting) (agreeing with plurality that patronage firing claims before the court were justiciable and not barred by the political question doctrine). The defendants’ talk of “dual sovereign-ties” will not be allowed to obscure the true issues in this case. Even though local authorities have the primary responsibility for dealing with local matters, if local authorities fail in their obligations under federal law, federal .judicial authority may be invoked. See, e. g., Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977); Elrod, 426 U.S. at 352, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (1976) (plurality opinion); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955); Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 469 F.Supp. 836, 852-53 (N.D.Ill.1979). B. The Supreme Court’s Patronage Ruling in Elrod v. Burns Is Not Dispositive The plaintiffs invite this court to hold that a subsequent legal development entitles them to relief on grounds separate from those suggested by the Seventh Circuit’s Shakman decision. Three years ago, in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), the Supreme Court held that patronage workers could not'be fired because of their political affiliation. The plaintiffs suggest that the present case can be resolved simply by applying the Elrod holding to the patronage promotion and hiring issues present in this case. Such an argument is very straightforward. The lead opinion in Elrod, written by Justice Brennan for a plurality of three Justices, found that the practice of patronage places substantial restraints on freedoms of belief and association. Patronage ... to the extent it compels or restrains belief and association, is inimical to the process which undergirds our system of government and is “at war with the deeper traditions of democracy embodied in the First Amendment.” Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d [561] at 576 [(7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973)]. As such, the practice unavoidably confronts decisions by this Court either invalidating or recognizing as invalid government action that inhibits belief and association through the conditioning of public employment on political faith. 427 U.S. at 357, 96 S.Ct. at 2682. The plurality opinion then rejected several proffered justifications for the practice of patronage firing, including the absence of any right to government employment, id. at 360-61, 96 S.Ct. 2673, the need to ensure effective government and the efficiency of public employees, id., at 364-66, 96 S.Ct. 2673,. the increased accountability to the public of patronage employees, id., at 366-67, 96 S.Ct. 2673, the need for political loyalty of employees in order to assure that representative government is not undercut by obstructionist tactics, id., at 367-68, 96 S.Ct. 2673, and the preservation of the democratic process, id., at 368-72, 96 S.Ct. 2673. There is no question that the rationale of the Elrod plurality opinion is applicable to the facts of this case. See, id., at 357-61 & 358 n.11, 359-60 n.13, 96 S.Ct. 2673. Nevertheless, the court cannot simply apply Elrod and hold that the defendants’ conduct is illegal, for these plaintiffs do not have standing to attack the constitutional validity of the defendants' infringement of job applicants’ rights. When the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ complaint in this case stated a cause of action, it did so because the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged patronage practices, if proven, infringed the plaintiffs’ own rights as candidates and voters. Such an infringement creates a case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants and gives this court so-called “constitutional” standing under Article III to adjudicate the complete legality of the challenged practices. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); Frissell v. Rizzo, 597 F.2d 840, 843 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979). Alone, though, that is not enough to give the court final standing to proceed. The court must also apply certain non-constitutional, “prudential” standing rules to determine whether the plaintiffs are the proper parties to raise the job applicants’ interests. See Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978, 984 (7th Cir. 1979). Frissell v. Rizzo, 597 F.2d 840, 844 (3d Cir.) (in absence of any allegation that a newspaper had actually been inhibited in its reporting of the news by mayor’s action in denying customary public advertising to the paper as a reprisal for the publication of unfavorable news articles, or that the newspaper was in some manner prevented from asserting its own first amendment rights, the taxpayer-citizen lacked standing to sue to vindicate the newspaper’s rights), cert denied, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979). The plaintiff class in this case was not certified as a class of government employees or applicants for government jobs. There has been no showing that the plaintiffs represent such government employees and applicants, or that the employees and applicants are for some reason unable or unlikely to bring suit themselves. Accordingly, the court must conclude that the plaintiffs are not proper parties for a challenge of patronage hiring and promotion practices as they affect employees and applicants. Instead, the defendants’ conduct must be analyzed solely under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Shakman and other applicable court decisions interpreting the rights of candidates and voters. [E]ven when a litigant has demonstrated a concrete and particularized injury to himself, he is usually permitted to assert only his own legal rights as a ground for decision in his favor, not those of third parties not before the court. Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 499, 514, 95 S.Ct. 2197; United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960). III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR REVIEWING THE CHALLENGED PRACTICES A. The Shakman Decision Does Not Provide Clear Guidance to This Court as to the Applicable Legal Framework for This Case In the years since the Seventh Circuit decided Shakman, the Supreme Court has developed a more complicated analytical framework for evaluating the constitutional validity of government laws or practices that are alleged to infringe on the first and fourteenth amendment rights of candidates and voters. In most recent first and fourteenth amendment cases, the Court specifically identifies the protected constitutional interests that are infringed. It then applies a balancing or strict scrutiny test, as appropriate, to weigh the infringed rights against the interests asserted by the state to justify the statute. On the basis of that determination, the Court makes its ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of the challenged law or practice. In contrast, the operative section of the court of appeals’ decision in Shakman is relatively brief. It is clear that at least some aspects of the interests of candidates in an equal chance and of the interests of voters in having an equally effective voice arer rights secured from state action by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The interests of candidates in official treatment free from intentional or purposeful discrimination are entitled to constitutional protection. “Where discrimination is sufficiently shown, the right to relief under the equal protection clause is not diminished by the fact that the discrimination relates to political rights.” [Quoting Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 11, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944).] The equal protection clause secures from invidious official discrimination the voter’s interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters. We acknowledge that the decisions just referred to involved mechanical aspects of the election process: e. g., the right to cast a vote, a candidate’s place on the ballot, and equal size in districts entitled to a representative. The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270. At first glance, the court of appeals decision appears to be lacking in instructions to this court as to how this court should proceed under a later-developed constitutional analysis. In the first paragraph, the court mentioned that “some aspects” of the rights asserted by the plaintiffs are “secured from state action by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.” In the second paragraph, the court said that certain of the plaintiffs’ “interests” were “entitled to constitutional protection.” Though the third and fourth paragraphs have some specific language, the opinion concludes “that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure.” There are two apparent gaps in the opinion that make analysis difficult. First, while there is general discussion of the protected nature of “the voter’s interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters” and a right of some sort to protection “from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure,” these rights do not appear to be precisely defined and their scope is not stated. Second, while the court of appeals repeatedly used the phrase “constitutional protection,” it did not define the nature of that protection. The equal protection clause has been construed to provide protection against all government decisions to the extent that it forbids irrational classifications among those upon whom a challenged law or practice acts. See e.g., Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955); Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 40 S.Ct. 560, 64 L.Ed. 989 (1920); Brest, Palmer v. Thompson: An Approach to the Problem of Unconstitutiona 1 Legislative Motivation, 1971 Sup.Ct.Rev. 95, 106-07. If the court of appeals meant to refer solely to this general protection, the challenged patronage practices would be subject to only a weak standard of review. See generally, e.g., San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). If the Seventh Circuit intended that this court apply a heightened form of judicial scrutiny, whether through a balancing test or through strict scrutiny, it failed to identify the manner in which this court would proceed. Thus, this court will have to turn to other, subsequent decisions in order to perform the necessary constitutional analysis of the factual stipulations submitted by the parties. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have followed more than one approach in analyzing possible infringements of first and fourteenth amendment rights. See Woodward v. City of Deerfield Beach, 538 F.2d 1081, 1082 n.1 (5th Cir. 1976). Usually, the Supreme Court identifies the protected constitutional interests infringed by the challenged government action, then evaluates the importance of the protected interests against the degree of the infringement and the weight and nature of the state interests that assertedly justify the decision. In some areas, however, the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have repeatedly faced similar fact patterns. In those cases, regularized analytical frameworks have developed. This court will first undertake a “traditional” analysis of the challenged patronage practices to determine whether protected constitutional interests have been infringed. It will also evaluate the challenged practices against the group of Seventh Circuit cases that present factual circumstances most similar to those in the instant case. After concluding under both tests that the protected constitutional rights of the plaintiffs are infringed by the defendants’ conduct, the court will strictly scrutinize those practices to determine whether they can be constitutionally justified. B. A Constitutional Analysis of the First and Fourteenth Amendment Interests at Stake The purposeful attempt of the defendants to hinder independent candidates burdens central first and fourteenth amendment values. A traditional constitutional analysis of the challenged patronage practices must begin with an identification of the precise first and fourteenth amendment interests at stake. See Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 183-84, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (equal protection case). The defendants’ patronage hiring practices directly burden the plaintiff candidates’ interests in running successfully for public office. Such a burden, however, is not by itself an infringement of constitutionally protected rights, for the Supreme Court has never recognized that interest alone as warranting special first amendment protection or as being a fundamental right under the equal protection clause. See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 142 — 43, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 632 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 100 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed.2d 142 (1979); Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 828 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977). Instead, the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have recognized three closely related interests meriting special constitutional protection that are infringed or otherwise burdened by the defendants’ challenged conduct. See Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 828 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977); Note, Newcomb v. Brennan: The Right of a Public Employee to Seek Political Office, 73 Nw.U.L.Rev. 533, 535-37 (1978). They are: (1) the interests of the plaintiff candidates in political expression; (2) the interests of the plaintiff voters and candidates in association for the advancement of their political beliefs; (3) the interests of the plaintiff voters in equal participation in the electoral process. Taken together, see Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (infringed interests must be aggregated to determine the degree of the constitutional violation), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978), these interests give a candidate a protected constitutional interest in freedom from official discrimination on the basis of his political beliefs. 1. The candidates interest in political expression Freedom from government-imposed restrictions on the content of belief or expression is the central premise of free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234-35, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 356, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1978). “[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). See Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20 (1975). This is especially true where political belief and expression are involved. “[I]t can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of free speech] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 625, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971). See Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 231, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977); id., at 259, 97 S.Ct. 1782 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1975); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). To the extent that the allegations of the present complaint are true, see pp. 1344-1349, infra, the defendants have clearly burdened the plaintiff candidates’ rights of free political belief and expression. As noted above, impairment of a candidate’s efforts to obtain public office can not, in itself, be equated with interference with protected first amendment freedoms. Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 632 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed.2d 142 (1979); Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 828 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977); see Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972). Here, however, it is alleged that the defendants have intentionally used the power of the state to impede plaintiffs’ candidacies because plaintiffs 'have chosen to run in opposition to the Democratic organization. Where state officials burden an individual’s candidacy in order to discourage opposition to some more favored candidate or viewpoint, their actions constitute a punishment based on the content of a communicative act. Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d at 828. As the court observed in Newcomb, “[plaintiff’s interest in running for [public office] . and thereby expressing his political views without interference from state officials who wished to discourage the expressions of those views lies at the core of the values protected by the First Amendment.” 558 F.2d at 829. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” [Government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2292, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (citation omitted); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.) (quoting Mosley), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1978). “[T]he essence of the first amendment is its denial to government of the power to determine which message shall be heard and which suppressed. . . . ” Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20, 28 (1975) (discussing Mosley). “[A] concern about content . . . is never permitted.” Mosley, 408 U.S. at 99, 92 S.Ct. at 2290 (citation omitted). 2. Freedom of association [The Supreme Court’s] decisions establish with unmistakable clarity that the freedom of an individual to associate for the purpose of advancing beliefs and ideas is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. E. g., Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 355-357 [, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion)]; Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 487 [, 95 S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975)]; Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57 [, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973)]; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 [, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958)]. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 233, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1799, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). The right of association is closely allied to freedom of speech and, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 486, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960). Because “[Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association,” NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. at 460, 78 S.Ct. at 1171, the first amendment guarantees the freedom to “associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas . . . Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56, 94 S.Ct. 303, 307, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973). “The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 [, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968)].” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57, 94 S.Ct. 303, 307, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973). In the present case, the defendants have burdened the rights of the plaintiff candidates and voters to associate. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that candidacy restrictions which have the effect of excluding certain candidates from the ballot burden the associational rights of those candidates and their supporters by rendering less valuable their freedom to collectively advance political ideas. E. g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). In much the same way, when the state acts to oppose the electoral efforts of certain candidates on the ballot, it renders less valuable the associational rights of those candidates and their supporters. 3. Equal participation in the electoral process There is no constitutional right to vote, as such. Nevertheless, the equal protection clause confers the substantive right to participate on an equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the state has adopted an electoral process for determining who will represent any segment of the state’s population. Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 713-14, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 59 n.2, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring); Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1968); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1971). “[E]ach and every citizen has an inalienable right to full and effective participation in the political process . . . .” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1383, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). This right of qualified voters to cast their votes effectively is clearly fundamental. E. g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979). “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). Thus, “[t]he right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). Since voters can only express their rights by voting for particular candidates, aspects of candidacy are “intertwined” with the rights of voters. Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 716, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974). The allegations of the present complaint indicate that the defendants have interfered with the rights of the plaintiff voters to equal participation in the electoral process. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267, 270 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971). Equal electoral participation “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); see Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20, 57 (1975) (“the holding of Reynolds v. Sims, is that a state cannot constitutionally discriminate among voters by giving some interests greater proportional weight than is justified by the numbers of people who share those interests”). This principle frequently has been invoked in striking down legislative apportionment plans resulting in the numerical dilution of votes. While the complaint in this case does not present such a claim, it does involve allegations of similar types of inequality. The state is alleged to work against and make more difficult the election of certain candidates. To the extent this is true, see pp. 1345-1349 infra, the value of the votes of those supporting those candidates, in terms of their ability to affect the outcome of an election, is lessened. C. The Candidates’ Interest in Freedom from Official Discrimination on the Basis of Their Political Beliefs — The Ballot Placement Cases 1. The two-part Bohus test The analysis conducted in Section B, pp. 1331-1335 supra, demonstrates that if the allegations of the complaint are true, the patronage practices challenged in the complaint infringe the first and fourteenth amendment rights of the plaintiff candidates and voters. As noted above, it is helpful in considering the implications of this legal conclusion to carefully review those Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit cases which present factual settings closest to the present case. Cf. Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (first and fourteenth amendment analytical approaches should both be applied, even though result will normally be the same), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978). In so doing, this court can have the benefit of the analytical framework used by higher courts in the most closely analogous setting. Of all the cases dealing with the rights of candidates and voters, the line of cases that is most directly applicable to the facts of this case is the line of ballot placement cases. Ballot access cases, for example, usually allege the effectively complete exclusion of certain candidates or types of candidates from the ballot. Suffrage cases involve either the total exclusion of a class of voters from the electoral process or an identifiable dilution and debasement of their vote. Ballot placement cases, however, involve allegations of governmental interference with the equality of the electoral process in a manner and to a degree similar to that charged in the present case. In ballot placement cases, unlike ballot access cases, the government has not excluded any candidate or candidates from the electoral process. Instead, the government is charged, as in the present case, with acting so as to favor, to some relatively small degree, certain candidates because of their political affiliation. In recent years, the Seventh Circuit has decided a clearly discernible line of ballot placement cases. Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d 22 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2840, 61 L.Ed.2d 285 (1979); Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d 460 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 1516, 55 L.Ed.2d 535 (1977); Baum v. Lunding, 535 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1976); Bohus v. Board of Education, 447 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1971); Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1969) (per curiam). In these cases, the Seventh Circuit has analyzed the effect of various ballot placement schemes on voters’ and candidates’ interests in political expression, association, and equal participation in the electoral process. The consistent holding of these cases has been that “[a] successful challenge to ballot placement procedure under the equal protection clause requires a showing of ‘an intentional or purposeful discrimination by authorities in which one class is favored over another.’ Bohus v. Board of Election Commissioners, 447 F.2d at 822.” Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d at 25. In addition, the plaintiff must prove that the challenged election process “is an advantage in an election.” Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d at 25 n.3 (citing Bohus); Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d at 465 (citing Bohus); see Baum v. Lunding, 535 F.2d at 1018 (citing Bohus); Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d at 392-93. Cf. Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098, 1103 (7th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (“relief under the equal protection clause is appropriate where, as here, plaintiffs have shown a discriminatory design favoring a particular group against others”) (candidate substitution case), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910, 94 S.Ct. 2607, 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974). The court adopts the standard of the Bohus case as the appropriate test in this case. 2. The degree of advantage required The parties disagree as to the degree of advantage required by Bohus. The defendants present two arguments in support of their contention that the plaintiffs must satisfy a higher burden than the mere showing of “an advantage.” First, they argue that the court of appeals’ decision in this case requires that the plaintiffs show a “substantial, perhaps massive,” 435 F.2d at 270, advantage in order to prove their case. Even if such a high standard is not necessary, they argue that the plaintiffs must at least demonstrate that the challenged patronage practices provide the defendants with a significant advantage, which they say the undisputed facts do not show here. a. A “substantial, perhaps massive" advantage is not required The defendants’ first argument is based on a slight misreading of certain language in the court of appeals decision. What the court of appeals actually said was: The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270 (emphasis added). This court does not construe the quoted language as requiring the plaintiffs to prove even a “substantial, perhaps massive, political effort” in order to prevail. Rather, the quoted language appears merely to be a characterization by the Seventh Circuit of the allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint. In any event, the defendants err when they claim that the plaintiffs must show a “substantial, perhaps massive,” advantage accrues to the regular Democrats due to the defendants’ patronage practices. Such a claim is erroneous, for neither the Shakman opinion nor any other authority supports their attempt to apply the quoted language to the degree of advantage required by Bohus. b. An actual, significant advantage is required There is a legitimate argument, though, over the amount of the advantage that must be shown by the plaintiffs under the Bohus test. It is a general rule of constitutional law that heightened judicial scrutiny is not appropriate unless some significant effect has been felt on a protected interest. Unless there is more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiffs’ interest in equal participation as candidates and voters in the electoral process, the plaintiffs cannot prove a constitutional violation, see Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 368, n.26, 99 S.Ct 664, 670 n.26 (1979) (dictim) (both purpose and effect are necessary to an equal protection violation); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 729, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) (“substantial burdens on the right to vote or to associate for political purposes are constitutionally suspect”) (primary affiliation case); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58, 94 S.Ct. 303, 308, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973) (heightened scrutiny required when there is “a ‘significant interference’ with the exercise of the constitutionally protected right of free association”) (citation omitted) (primary affiliation case); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143-44, 92 S.Ct. 849, 856, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972) (strict scratiny mandated where a restriction on the right to vote has a “real and appreciable impact on the exercise of the franchise”) (filing fee case); Socialist Workers Party v. March Fong Eu, 591 F.2d 1252, 1260-61 & 1261 n.5 (9th Cir. 1978) (“more than insubstantial” burden required) (following Storer) (ballot identification case); cert. denied, 441 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2167, 60 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1979); Antonio v. Kirkpatrick, 579 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1978) (following Bullock) (residency requirement case), and will not be entitled to relief, see Mt. Healthy City School Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 270 n.21, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); cf. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (scope of remedy is limited to the scope of the violation). Thus, this court must construe the “an advantage” test to require some showing that an actual, significant advantage is received by the favored candidates. An early expression of this requirement can be found in the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1969). There, the court of appeals evaluated a similar contention by the defendants in a ballot placement case. Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to prove that a candidate with first or second ballot position would enjoy a substantial advantage. This amounts to an argument that the device employed by the secretary was ineffective; that the discrimination was harmless. We think it was adequately established that top position on the ballot is one of a number of factors which tend to affect the outcome of an election, and which may have a substantial effect although the degree varies with the circumstances. 417 F.2d at 392 (emphasis added). The Weisberg statement remains good law. See Culliton v. Board of Election Commissioners, 419 F.Supp. 126, 127-28 (N.D.Ill.1976) (quoting Weisberg), aff’d sub nom. Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d 460, 465 (7th Cir.) (citing Weisberg), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 1516, 55 L.Ed.2d 535 (1977). See also Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098, 1102-03 (7th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910, 94 S.Ct. 2607, 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974). Thus, the Seventh Circuit ballot placement cases show that the advantage need not be a massive or overwhelming one. It need not be the only, or the dominant factor in deciding elections. The plaintiffs, in order to prevail, must show no more than that the challenged patronage practices are a significant advantage, an advantage that will help the regular Democrats win some elections. The foregoing discussion of the ballot placement cases demonstrates that, even though there is no right to run for office, the rights of voters and candidates discussed in Section B, pp. 1331-1335 supra, combine to give a candidate the right to be free from official discrimination on the basis of his or her political beliefs. Those cases also provide a two-part test for determining whether this right has been violated. . Once a plaintiff shows (1) an intentional discrimination by the government on the basis of his or her political beliefs that gives (2) an actual significant advantage in an election to his or her opponent, as defined in Weisberg, he or she has demonstrated an infringement of that right. As in other first and fourteenth amendment cases, the defendants will then be obliged to demonstrate that the challenged law or practice can surviv