_o0rc

If I were looking for work, I would consider it.

Sure, I won't argue that. But it's another useful filter for me.

Ha, yes, the intent is that it would be an open and stated part of the hiring process. There's no reason to surprise people with the question. I'd rather let candidates self-select them out, as much for this question as for any other mis-alignments.

I did a poor job in my first comment of explaining my role relative to hiring. I'm speaking from a position of having been a founder and CEO, and likely being one again. The question about how this would play it with HR is understood, but isn't applicable to me personally. I believe (as I suspect you do) that in most organizations, this would be a hard thing to instill retroactively or individually and would meet lots of resistance, unless it were a very philosophically aligned company.

I'm not sure that I share the assumptions here about the distribution of talent throughout the American voting population, in particular given that the venn diagram of the tech hiring pool and the American voting population is not a circle.

I understand that perspective, but it doesn't affect my position. I'm free to choose who I work for, and I wouldn't choose to work for someone who found the question disqualifying. I get to define my own utility function.

It would be a strange question, depending on the scenario. You can imagine I probably don’t anticipate being in interviews where I’m asking that of somebody who isn’t the primary executive. (In other words, I wouldn’t want to work under someone whose judgement I don’t trust, and this would be a dealbreaker on judgement.)

You’re correct that it rules out some important locations in tech, and I do think geography will continue to matter to a degree.

I think there’s also some appeal to a company that has strong, publicly stated principles that can benefit recruiting, but it remains to be seen. But when I consider potential future ventures, these are things I’ve considered and intend to apply.

That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this.

It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).

It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.

As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going forward.

I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.)

Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.