Spoils System Comeback: Why Should We Care About The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883?
Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 Removed the Spoils System
The "spoils system" of political patronage is making a frightening comeback. The negatives of the spoils system could doom our democracy. For almost 150 years, it’s been illegal to fire or hire career civil service employees based on political preferences. That’s largely because of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883.
Congress enacted the Pendleton Act, also known as the Civil Service Act, to attack and prevent rampant corruption and incompetence in the federal government, due to the “spoils system” then in place. The spoils system had ramped up during the administration of Andrew Jackson in the 1830’s and expanded even more after the Civil War.
The negatives of the spoils system were and still are vast. Still, one party seems to support a return to the spoils system and one party to oppose it.
Civics knowledge provides important context when determining how to hire and fire the civil service. This issue has immense ramifications for the type of country and government we will have in 2025 and beyond.
To the Victor Belongs the Spoils- The Negatives of the Spoils System
According to Britannica.com, definition of the spoils system, also known as the “patronage system”, is:
spoils system, practice in which the political party winning an election rewards its campaign workers and other active supporters by appointment to government posts and with other favours. The spoils system involves political activity by public employees in support of their party and the employees’ removal from office if their party loses the election. A change in party control of government necessarily brings new officials to high positions carrying political responsibility, but the spoils system extends personnel turnover down to routine or subordinate governmental positions.
The spoils system definition also includes awarding government contracts, especially defense contracts, in exchange for political support, and public contracts to supporters under terms favorable to the supporters, and not the country. Under the spoils system in the 19th century, the American government functioned badly due to graft, patronage, incompetence, corruption, lack of continuity, and theft.
Federal employees were chosen based on loyalty to, or favors done for, the President, Congressmen, or Senators in the governing party. When a new party took over, previous civil servants left, often replaced with unqualified, corrupt new hires.
These officials were expected to and did perform political services for their party as part of their jobs. Indeed, their party exacted a portion of their salaries to help fund future campaigns.
Thomas Nast's cartoon illustrates the spoils system in place before the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883.
Garfield Assassination Led to Pendleton Act, Ending Spoils System
While many of us have heard a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth, fewer know the name of Charles J. Gateau, or the reason he assassinated President James A. Garfield. Gateau believed Garfield should have awarded him the post of Consul to Paris for Gateau’s support of Garfield in the presidential election. He had no relevant experience and had in fact played no role in Garfield’s success.
The Pendleton Act became law in response to this fatal shooting of a president. Its supporters believed that the negatives of the spoils system had created a poisonous, corrupt, incompetent, ineffective government, with partisans devoting their efforts to supporting their president’s and party’s campaigns and policies instead of doing their jobs.
Almost 150 years later, research bears out this rationale: meritocratic hiring and protection of civil servants correlates to less corruption. The spoils system and hiring and firing of cronies or loyalists based on loyalty rather than based on merit correlates to more corruption and is a sign of the breaking down of democracy.
The US Has Expanded The Meritocratic, Professionalized Civil Service
In 2024, experts, governments, democracies, and academics around the world view a professionalized civil service as essential to preventing government corruption. Since 1883, the United States has acted in accordance with this view, which is supported by reams of evidence showing that competitive government hiring systems are linked with greater economic growth, less corruption, and more democracy.
As a result, over time Congress has enacted other laws and promulgated other regulations strengthening the civil service. Congress has extended protections to and included more federal employees in the competitive service, and removed additional vestiges of the spoils system. These laws include:
The Hatch Act (1939) which restricted federal civil service employees except for the President and Vice President from engaging in political activity such as donations to a candidate or party, supporting a partisan campaign, or using their office to advance a candidate or party. This is an illustrative but not an exhaustive list of prohibited political activity;
The Civil Service Reform Act (1978) which set forth merit-based hiring and firing systems and protection of federal workers against practices such as discrimination, wrongful termination, and nepotism, and created the Senior Executive Service (SES), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit System Protections Board.
Today, most of the 2.9 million federal employees are career employees hired through a competitive, non-political merit-based process, protected by these laws. Political appointees comprise only about 4,000 officials of the 2.9 million. Surprisingly, 80% of the full-time federal workforce live and work outside of the Washington DC area, and the most common federal professionals are doctors.
Trump/Repuplicans and Schedule F.
Schedule F Executive Order and Trump/Vance Platform
Our approach seemed well settled and backed by evidence. But all of this background civics history which many Americans may not know or remember became relevant again during the ascent of Donald Trump. Trump campaigned against “the Deep State” and promised to “Drain The Swamp”.
According to Reason Magazine, a Libertarian, right-biased, highly reliable source, that didn’t happen. Instead, they claim, former President Trump doubled government spending, increased the federal deficit, and created new programs filling Washington with more bureaucrats.
On October 21, 2020, two weeks before the 2020 presidential election, former President Trump issued an Executive Order known as Schedule F. Schedule F of the order created a new category of federal service, not subject to competitive and meritocratic hiring and some due process rights upon termination:
Schedule F. Positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition shall be listed in Schedule F. In appointing an individual to a position in Schedule F, each agency shall follow the principle of veteran preference as far as administratively feasible.
This change removed the protections and meritocratic hiring requirements for a vast number of high-clearance level and policy-making federal workers. Schedule F could possibly take us back to the world of Andrew Jackson and the spoils system. It also would remove longstanding policies of preference for hiring veterans without study or support for why this should occur.
Democrats’ View of Schedule F
Schedule F was never completely implemented. When President Biden took office, he rescinded this Trump Executive Order and others Trump had issued to make it easier to fire government workers. Biden issued a new Executive Order seeking to protect federal employees from future similar efforts.
In support of this decision, Biden stated:
(Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service), not only was unnecessary to the conditions of good administration, but also undermined the foundations of the civil service and its merit system principles[emphasis added]. which were essential to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883’s repudiation of the spoils system[emphasis added]. Accordingly, to enhance the efficiency of the civil service and to promote good administration and systematic application of merit system principles, Executive Order 13957 is hereby revoked.
Democrats have attempted to shore up the merit system and ensure civil servants “can carry out their duties without fear of political reprisal” in the event of a Trump victory.
Nonetheless, Schedule F is very much back. In Agenda 47 of former President Trump’s platform, he states:
First, I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats. And I will wield that power very aggressively.
The two major parties offer vastly different views of the functioning of our government, president, tone, civics knowledge, American history, and how to prove/argue that policies have merit. Looking beyond the rhetoric demonstrates that the election of Donald Trump will have a large impact on how the United States functions after the election.
Right-wing Supermajority rules in favor of Trump and broadens immunity for presidents.
Import of the Supreme Court Presidential Immunity Decision
The language of Schedule F could seem at first glance to those not aware of the history of the spoils system and Donald Trump’s public statements to be an attempt to make the government more efficient. But those with civics knowledge will understand that the order undoes almost a century and a half’s worth of research-validated policy, principles, and law.
Trump’s rhetoric and stated intent in his platform (“remove rogue bureaucrats, wield power very aggressively”) seem to signal something quite different from a desire for efficiency. His statements and vitriol raise the following questions:
What’s a “rogue bureaucrat”?
What does “wield power very aggressively” mean?
What happens if there are no standards or protections in hiring or firing policymakers or employees with a high security clearance other than the opinions, beliefs, and agenda of a president? Is going back to the spoils system a good idea?
What’s the evidence-based reason for removing policymakers and those with high-security clearances from civil service merit hiring, protection from firing and discrimination, and making them political appointees instead?
How many people does this include and which jobs? Are there any limits?
What would be the effect on the government, policy-making, continuity, and corruption? What about all that research that shows this type of process leads to corruption and poorer outcomes for a country?
Is there any reason to think the negatives of the spoils system won’t affect the country today? If so, what is it and where’s the proof?
These issues become even more important when viewed in the context of the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in Trump v. The United States. The “immunity decision” appears to give any president the unlimited power to hire or fire any Executive Branch employee based on any or no reason, including for political punishment or reward, or for financial or criminal reasons.
On page 2, the Chief Justice Roberts states:
Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1 . . . His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” [citation omitted] In the latter case [when power stems from the Constitution], the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” [citation omitted] When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. [emphasis added] It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority [emphasis added].
Since the president heads the Executive Branch, a power which he or she shares with no one and which the Constitution bestows only on the president, this holding apparently immunizes many presidential actions which might otherwise be prosecuted as crimes.
Immunized “official acts” by the president would seemingly encompass rejecting competitive hiring and job protections, or removing, jailing, or harming opponents, without evidence and from a corrupt motive. Bribes too, and even murder, would seem to be allowed. The Pendleton Act sought to prevent many of these practices when it replaced the spoils system with merit hiring.
Trump’s Platform and Statements Confirm Desire To “Root Out” Political Opponents
Donald Trump’s statements and his/the Republican Platform contain references to removing merit-based hiring in the federal government, and more easily firing and replacing merit-hired civil servants. For example, Promise Number 9 of the Republican/Trump/Vance 20 Promises states:
Our Commitment: Republicans will offer a clear, precise, and USA oriented plan to stop the Radical Left Democrats’ Weaponization of Government and its Assault on American Liberty. [emphasis added] We will restore Government of, by, and for the People, ensuring Accountability, protecting Individual Liberties, and fixing our once very corrupt Elections. We commit to upholding the Constitution of the United States, appointing judges who respect the rule of law, and defending the Rights of all Americans to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We will maintain the Supreme Court as it was always meant to be, at 9 Justices. We will not allow the Democrat Party to increase this number, as they would like to do, by 4, 6, 8, 10, and even 12 Justices. We will block them at every turn.
1. Republicans Will Stop Woke and Weaponized Government We will hold accountable those who have misused the power of Government to unjustly prosecute their Political Opponents. [emphasis added] We will declassify Government records, root out wrongdoers, and fire corrupt employees [emphasis added].
Former President Trump uses heightened, coded language (e.g. “woke and weaponized”) in his public statements and platform, a departure from the norm of civility in political discourse. He has indicated that if elected he would weaponize the federal government and indict a political opponent who was “doing well”. He’s also said he would exact “retribution” against his opponents (whom he’s called “vermin” whom he will root out).
Trump’s platform accuses “the Radical Left” of weaponizing the federal government, without providing any evidence. Trump has stated that he believes weaponization of the federal government in bringing two lawsuits against him has opened the door for him to weaponize the federal government if he regains power.
Trump’s angry and vindictive rhetoric, unsupported by evidentiary proof, frightens many, including historians who see these statements as echoing authoritarians. On the other hand, his supporters believe he’s been falsely prosecuted.
Democrats favor merit-based hiring, job protections, and don't want to go back to the spoils system.
Democrats/Harris’ Position
In contrast, Democrats and Vice President Harris do not support the validity of any president or party weaponizing the federal government. Harris’ platform advocates for an independent Justice Department and FBI and for presidents to be held accountable for their actions, even Democratic presidents, and even Harris herself should she win:
Ensure No One Is Above the Law
Vice President Harris believes that no one is above the law. She’ll fight to ensure that no former president has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House. She will also support common-sense Supreme Court reforms — like requiring Justices to comply with ethics rules that other federal judges are bound by and imposing term limits — to address the crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.
Democrats deny the accusations that the Department of Justice improperly brought criminal cases against the former president for mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn the election results on January 6.
Harris seeks to link Trump to Project 2025 and to highlight some of Trump’s most incendiary comments:
Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda
. . . If elected president, Trump will implement his Project 2025 agenda to consolidate power, bring the Department of Justice and the FBI under his direct control so he can give himself unchecked legal power and go after his opponents, and rule as a dictator on “day one.”
While this language is less inflammatory than Trump’s, Harris exaggerates in calling Project 2025 “his agenda” and in the certainty he will implement the 922-page document’s agenda. While circumstantial evidence of links with Project 2025 exist, Trump has denied the link.
There is no certainty that he would implement all or part of the vast Project 2025. Further, she also uses hyperbole in the phrase “unchecked legal power” which may or may not be true.
Unprecedented and vast, likely including retribution, would be more accurate. Nonetheless, Trump’s own statements and platform give credence to Harris’ claims about Trump’s broad intentions to weaponize the federal government against political opponents and perceived enemies.
Where Does This Leave American Citizens?
The public can and should ask these questions about what will happen if Donald Trump reinstates Schedule F and seeks to weaponize the justice system:
Who will decide what’s wrongdoing or corrupt?
What standard should or will be employed in making hiring, firing, and policy decisions, and who should have input?
Should we hire only political partisans for policy and confidential jobs?
What if these hiring/firing/policy decisions are not correct or are motivated by vengeance, anger, partisanship, self-interest, misinformation, or a corrupt motive? Is that okay? Would it be okay if the other party did it?
How can we make sure a president makes research-, evidence-, and experience-based decisions if there’s no scrutiny of these decisions, especially if they are reached with only the help of political loyalists who may or not be expert in these fields?
What type of government and country will we have if Donald Trump’s Schedule F Executive Order and stated aims of retribution and indictment of political opponents doing well are effectuated?
Do we want to go back to the spoils system?
Do we like this type of tone, language, and hate? What does evidence show us about what a return to the something like the spoils system would do to our country? What about the almost-certain rise of corruption in government?
These questions arise partly because the Republican platform above includes obvious factual misstatements and unproven assumptions. For example, the Supreme Court was not always meant to be nine justices and in fact began with only six. Congress sets the number of justices.
If we’re going to rely on the judgment of one person to potentially exercise complete control of our government, and he or she cannot be checked or prosecuted, we should understand what’s at stake and our country’s history. Civics knoweldge can show us how to examine what politicians are really saying and what lies beneath the heated rhetoric. And, most importantly, what the consequences of a return to the spoils system will mean for the country.
