necessary, although it may be somewhat informative.” Smith, 117 F.3d at 970 (citing McCloud, 97 F.3d at 1561). We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ positions within the county auditor’s office were not afforded First Amendment protection because Hadley envisioned these positions to be confidential, policymaking jobs for which political affiliation was an app inistrative assistant to the county engineer could be dismissed for political reasons where she had significant interaction with county commissioners and routinely fielded their questions concerning the budget; accompanied the engineer to official meetings; supervised other employees within the engineer’s office; and had the authority to approve expenditure requests within the office); McCloud, 97 F.3d at 1561 (<HOLDING>). On, the other hand, Plaintiffs’ evidence,
holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion holding that the determination of the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state is a political question solely within the power prerogative and discretion of the legislature and not subject to judicial review holding that the political subdivisions of a state are subject to federal diversity jurisdiction holding that the administrative assistant to the county deputy auditor was subject to political dismissal because she controlled the lines of communication of a political actor with discretionary authority