Hatch Act of 1939

The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and the Vice President, from engaging in partisan political activity. Named after Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, the law was officially known as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.

The act precluded federal employees from membership in "any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government," which especially applied to fascist and communist organizations.

Contents 1 Background 2 Content 3 Controversy 4 Recent events 5 Extension to state and local workers 6 Applicability to U.S. military personnel 7 Current restrictions 7.1 Permitted/prohibited activities for employees who may participate in partisan political activity 7.2 Agencies and employees prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity 7.3 Permitted/prohibited activities for employees who may not participate in partisan political activity 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

Background

The Hatch Act grew out of a long tradition of civil service reform. It removed political patronage from government jobs and blocked office holders from using their power for partisan ends. The immediate need came from the widespread allegation that Works Progress Administration (WPA) workers had been used by local Democratic Party politicians during the congressional elections of 1938.

Criticism centered on Kentucky,^[1] Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Maryland. In Pennsylvania, for example, local Democrats were consulted on the appointment of WPA administrators and case workers. Republicans and dissident Democrats publicized evidence that Democratic politicians had used WPA jobs to gain unfair political advantage. When Congress investigated it confirmed these allegations and recommended remedial legislation.^[2] Many Republicans--and Democrats—feared that the WPA was becoming a national machine controlled by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and WPA head Harry Hopkins.

The Act was sponsored by Senator Carl Hatch following disclosures that WPA officials were in fact using their positions to win votes for the Democratic Party, just as many had alleged. Hatch, himself a Democrat, saw this as outright corruption which should not be tolerated under any circumstance by either political party, a feeling shared by most of his colleagues in the Senate.

Others dispute whether the thrust of the Hatch Act was in fact overtly related to simply the issue of misuse of WPA funds and intimidation by officials. Scholars have raised the issue that the Republican opposition was merely trying to weaken a core constituency of the Democratic Party in an effort to damage the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and aid elections of Republicans in Congress.

Content

The original Act forbids intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It also forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.

The most restrictive measure was brought about by Republicans in the Senate. It dictates that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns.

An amendment on July 19, 1940 extended coverage to state and local employees whose salaries include any federal funds. This amendment also set an annual ceiling of $3 million for political parties' campaign expenditures and $5,000 for individual campaign contributions.

Controversy

• In 1947 and 1974, The Hatch Act was appealed to the Supreme Court; both times claiming it was a violation of free speech, and both times the Act was upheld.
• A proposed amendment, which had the same argument in mind, to permit federal workers' participation in political campaigns passed the House but not the Senate in 1987; in 1990 a similar bill passed both houses but was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush, and the veto override failed in the House.

Section 7324 of The Hatch Act provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:

• (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or

• (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

Recent events

• On November 18, 2008, Vanderburgh County, Indiana Commission President Jeff Korb filed an injunction against Steven Melcher, who defeated Korb in the November 4, 2008 general election, citing the Hatch Act. Melcher is the facilities manager for the Community Action Program of Evansville (CAPE). CAPE is an agency that administers Head Start, LIHEAP heating assistance and Section 8 housing assistance among other federally funded programs in a three-county area of southwestern Indiana.^[3]
• On October 6, 2008, federal investigators announced that they were investigating Sheriff Mike Scott of Lee County, Florida for possible violations of the Hatch Act. The previous day, Sheriff Scott spoke, in uniform, on stage, at a rally for presidential candidate John McCain.^[4][5]
• On May 6, 2008, FBI agents raided Scott Bloch's offices. NPR and the Wall Street Journal reported that the raids were in relation to an investigation into allegations of obstruction of justice by Bloch's office. ^[6] The New York Times reported that the investigation concerned whether Bloch had hired an outside company to "scrub" computer files to prevent an inquiry into whether he had violated the Hatch Act by mixing politics with his job, which is to shield whistleblowers.^[7]
• In November 2007, Terre Haute, Indiana mayor Kevin Burke challenged the candidacy of then-mayor-elect Duke Bennett under provisions of the Act. In November 2008, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Bennett, who took office after a Vigo County, Indiana judge ruled that he was eligible to serve, was ineligible under the terms of the Act. The ruling is nonbinding, pending Bennett's appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.
• In June 2007, Lurita Alexis Doan, then Administrator of the General Services Administration, was found by the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) of violating the Hatch Act when she took part in a video conference with Karl Rove and other White House officials, and sent letters asking how to help Republican politicians get elected, and was accused by Special Counsel Scott Bloch of lying to deliberately mislead investigators.^[8]
• In 2006, the Utah Democratic Party challenged the candidacy of Ogden City Police Chief Jon Greiner for State Senate. The challenge was upheld by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel because the year prior the Ogden City Police Department received a federal grant to help pay for bulletproof vests. Jon Greiner appealed the decision, remained on the ballot, and won the election. He now serves as a Utah State Senator while the results of the appeal are unknown.^[9]
• On about July 29, 2004, the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) cited the Hatch Act while ordering NASA to remove photos of Senator John Kerry taken during his visit to the Kennedy Space Center. The OSC later gave a press release stating that Kerry's visit did not violate the act.^[10]
• In 1993 Congress amended the Hatch Act to allow Federal employees to take an active part in political campaigns for Federal offices. Active Federal employees are able to participate in campaigns for President, Senate, and House of Representatives. (Retirees, spouses, and family members are not bound by the Hatch Act.)

• These incidents have led at least two scholars to urge Congress to consider tightening the Hatch Act's restrictions.^[11]

• On March 5, 2009, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 1345, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009, into the U.S. Congress's House of Representatives. The bill would amend the Hatch Act to include the District of Columbia within the definition of "state" with respect to political activities of certain state and local employees; and (2) remove provisions specifically applicable to employees of government of the District of Columbia.

Extension to state and local workers

The Hatch Act also applies by extension to certain employees of state and local governments whose positions are primarily paid for by federal funds. It has been interpreted, for instance, to bar employees of state agencies administering federal unemployment insurance programs, or appointed local law enforcement agency officials with oversight of federal grant funds, from political activity. So long as some federal funds support the position, the Hatch Act bars state and local government employees from running for public office even if their position is funded almost entirely with local funds.^[12]

Applicability to U.S. military personnel

Although the Hatch Act applies to Department of Defense civil servants, as well as Department of Homeland Security civil servants in direct support of the United States Coast Guard, it does not apply to actively serving uniformed members of the U.S. armed forces. However, uniformed personnel are subject to Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 (DoDD 1344.10), Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, and the spirit and intent of this directive is effectively synonymous with the Hatch Act for Federal civil servants. By agreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, DoDD 1344.10 also applies to uniformed personnel of the Coast Guard at all times, whether it is operating as a service in the Department of Homeland Security or as part of the Navy under the Department of Defense.

As a "directive," DoDD 1344.10 is considered to be in the same category as an order or regulation, and military personnel violating its provisions can be considered in violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.^[13][14][15]

Current restrictions

(See U.S. Office of Special Counsel "Hatch Act for Federal Employees")

Permitted/prohibited activities for employees who may participate in partisan political activity

These federal and D.C. employees may:

• be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
• register and vote as they choose
• assist in voter registration drives
• express opinions about candidates and issues
• contribute money to political organizations
• attend political fundraising functions
• attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
• join and be an active member of a political party or club
• sign nominating petitions
• campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
• campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
• make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
• distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
• hold office in political clubs or parties

These federal and D.C. employees may not:

• use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
• solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
• solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
• be candidates for public office in partisan elections
• engage in political activity while:
  • on duty
  • in a government office
  • wearing an official uniform
  • using a government vehicle
• wear partisan political buttons on duty

Agencies and employees prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity

Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:

• Administrative law judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
• Central Intelligence Agency
• Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
• Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
• Defense Intelligence Agency
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Federal Elections Commission
• Merit Systems Protection Board
• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
• National Security Agency
• National Security Council
• Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
• Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
• Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)
• United States Office of Special Counsel
• Secret Service
• Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))

Permitted/prohibited activities for employees who may not participate in partisan political activity

These federal employees may:

• register and vote as they choose
• assist in voter registration drives
• express opinions about candidates and issues
• participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
• contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
• attend political rallies and meetings
• join political clubs or parties
• sign nominating petitions
• campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances

These federal employees may not:

• be candidates for public office in partisan elections
• campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
• make campaign speeches
• collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
• distribute campaign material in partisan elections
• organize or manage political rallies or meetings
• hold office in political clubs or parties
• circulate nominating petitions
• work to register voters for one party only
• wear political buttons at work

See also

• Office of Personnel Management
• United States civil service
• Smith Act
• House Un-American Activities Committee
• United Public Workers v. Mitchell

References

External links

• Discussion of Hatch Act on federal, state, and local government employees by the U. S. Office of Special Counsel