In reaching this conclusion, the
Upton court suggested initially that the voting public would perceive a deputy who opposed the victorious sheriff to be hostile and unreliable. In view of the protection afforded full deputies in Price County, the perceptions of the voting public may not be pertinent. If patronage-based employment decisions turn on the reliability of the deputy, performance is a more relevant criterion. In this regard, the need for mutual trust and confidence, particularly in smaller departments, supports the conclusion that political conclusions do matter. As deposition testimony from the present case demonstrates, members of the Price County Law Enforcement Committee and the Personnel Committee were concerned about Heideman's ability to function consistently and competently as a member of the sheriff's department collective. Moquin Dep. at 8, 11–12; Lukes Dep. at 17, 26–27; Heuckman Dep. at 13; Nussberger Dep. at 21; Helixon Dep. at 16, 19. Heideman's aggressive partisanship at the tavern suggested that his presence in the sheriff's department would not foster the necessary cooperation among the approximately fifteen deputies, the Chief Deputy, and the Sheriff of Price County. Admittedly, Heideman's situation differs from that in
Upton inasmuch as Price County has adopted a specific policy allowing sheriff's deputies to engage in political campaigns as long as their participation does not interfere with the performance of their duties. However, the reach of
Upton is broad: “[A] sheriff may use political considerations when determining who will serve as a deputy sheriff.”
Upton, 930 F.2d at 1218. Consequently, Heideman cannot prevail on his First Amendment challenge to his discharge.