View this article online at https://www.fedsmith.com/2020/02/11/amend-hatch-act-restore-federal-workers-first-amendment-rights/ and visit FedSmith.com to sign up for free news updates
The Hatch Act, originally passed in 1939, substantially limits the political activity of most federal workers. The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the Act is constitutional. Being constitutional does not necessarily make it the right thing to do.
Here are the basic restrictions that apply to most federal workers:
And here are the restrictions that apply tofurther restrictedemployees (those in intelligence or enforcement agencies, SES, ALJs and other highly paid employees):
While the intent of the Hatch Act provisions restricting federal workers may be sound, the result is, in effect, muzzling many federal workers and depriving them of their First Amendment rights.
Some of the restrictions as outlined Office of Special Counsel (OSC) guidance border on the absurd. Considerthis guidanceissued to a member or the Senior Executive Service whose wife was considering a run for Congress.
One question was, You first ask whether you can prepare food for fundraising events held at your home. The response? As a further restricted employee, you may not act in concert with a candidate for partisan political office. See 5 C.F.R. 734.402. The Hatch Act also prohibits further restricted employees from organizing, selling tickets to, promoting, or actively participating in a fundraising activity of a candidate for partisan political office. See 5 C.F.R. 734.410(b). Therefore, because you may not provide volunteer services to a candidate, you may not prepare food for, or otherwise help organize, any fundraising event. So he cannot make cookies for an event in his home. OSC also noted that there is no problem with his wife holding the event in their home, but he cannot make a welcoming speech. He is able to welcome them, however.
Does that do anything to protect our democracy? I think not. Does anyone assume this gentleman would not support his wifes candidacy? Does anyone think his direct reports or co-workers dont know that?
The Hatch Act restrictions serve to limit his right to speak and in the process reduce transparency. They also add confusion about what can and cannot be done. Many federal workers disciplined for Hatch Act violations had no intent to violate the law.
A far better approach is to retain limits on federal workers running for partisan office and absolute prohibitions on federal workers taking official action based on political views. A hiring manager makes a hiring decision based on politics? S/he should be fired. A federal employee awards contracts based on politics? S/he should be fired. A federal executive bakes cookies for his wifes fundraiser in their home? Who cares?
The way the Hatch Act is working now does nothing to protect our democracy, nor does it do anything to ensure electoral integrity. It prevents many employees from speaking out about the politicians whose decisions affect them, such as employees who are furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations. It drives political activity for many employees underground, and does nothing to limit the political activity of senior political appointees.
When Obama Administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro violated the Act in April 2016, nothing happened. The OSCissued a finding that he had, in fact, violated the Hatch Act, and that was it.
When Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act at least twice, OSCissued a letterto President Donald Trump saying, If Ms. Conway were any other federal employee, her multiple violations of the law would almost certainly result in her removal from her federal position by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In both of these cases, highly ranking political appointees violated the Hatch Act and got away with it. Both spoke in their official capacity in favor of the president they served in a manner that clearly violated the law.
OSCs letter to President Donald Trump was spot on any career employee who committed the same offense would be fired. One of the glaring weaknesses of the Hatch Act is that it is toothless with respect to an Administration in power. President Obama could ignore Julian Castros violation and President Trump can ignore Kellyanne Conways violation.
In 1973 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. In his dissent, Justice William O. Douglas strongly disagreed with the decision. Justice Douglas said:
We deal here with a First Amendment right to speak, to propose, to publish, to petition Government, to assemble. Time and place are obvious limitations. Thus no one could object if employees were barred from using office time to engage in outside activities whether political or otherwise. But it is of no concern of Government what an employee does in his spare time, whether religion, recreation, social work, or politics is his hobby unless what he does impairs efficiency or other facets of the merits of his job. Some things, some activities do affect or may be thought to affect the employees job performance. But his political creed, like his religion, is irrelevant. In the areas of speech, like religion, it is of no concern what the employee says in private to his wife or to the public in Constitution Hall. If Government employment were only a privilege, then all sorts of conditions might be attached. But it is now settled that Government employment may not be denied or penalized on a basis that infringes [the employees] constitutionally protected interests-especially, his interest in freedom of speech.If Government, as the majority stated inMitchell,may not condition public employment on the basis that the employee will not take any active part in missionary work, it is difficult to see why it may condition employment on the basis that the employee not take an active part in political campaigns. For speech, assembly, and petition are as deeply embedded in the First Amendment as proselytizing a religious cause.Free discussion of governmental affairs is basic in our constitutional system.
I believe Justice Douglas was right, particularly when he said, In the areas of speech, like religion, it is of no concern what the employee says in private to his wife or to the public in Constitution Hall.
What we have is a law that restricts speech of federal workers, but in practice does not restrict the speech of highly visible senior political appointees. It limits transparency by driving political activity underground, where it is less likely to be known to anyone.
I prefer to see transparency, and free exercise of the First Amendment rights of everyone, whether s/he works for the federal government or for Burger King. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that senior executives will not be baking cookies for their spouses political campaigns.
2020 Jeff Neal. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Jeff Neal.
Tags: Hatch Act
- Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash | TheHill - The Hill - March 26th, 2020
- Judge rules lawsuit alleging Trump threatened free press can move forward | TheHill - The Hill - March 26th, 2020
- Trumps Coronavirus Briefings Are a Ratings Hit. Should Networks Cover Them? - The New York Times - March 26th, 2020
- Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude - SCOTUSblog - March 26th, 2020
- Donald Trump Must Face First Amendment Suit for Revoking Press Badges - Hollywood Reporter - March 25th, 2020
- Robbins: Freedom of worship and the strange case of Warder Cresson - Vail Daily News - March 25th, 2020
- MuzzleWatch: Breaking down the legal attack against the BDS movement - Mondoweiss - March 25th, 2020
- Coronavirus in Arizona: Mayors, cities can't close parks, essentials without going through Governor Ducey - ABC15 Arizona - March 25th, 2020
- Misplaced outrage over who attends a White House press conference | TheHill - The Hill - March 25th, 2020
- Donald Trump Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter, Appeals Court Affirms - Variety - March 24th, 2020
- Sixteen Stormy Days: Tripurdaman Singh's account of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution makes for... - Firstpost - March 24th, 2020
- Keep Federal COVID-19 Package Focused on the Virus and Its Effects - Mackinac Center for Public Policy - March 24th, 2020
- WEHOville Asks John Duran to Stop Blocking It and WeHo Residents on Social Media - WEHOville - March 24th, 2020
- Letter: Government actions going too far on virus - Grand Forks Herald - March 24th, 2020
- First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms ... - March 19th, 2020
- The First Amendment, a Philosophy Professor, and Pronouns - Daily Nous - March 19th, 2020
- Sunshine Week: It's always your right to know - The Highland County Press - March 19th, 2020
- Relist Watch in the Time of Cholera - SCOTUSblog - March 19th, 2020
- Obey the Law - Justia Verdict - March 19th, 2020
- Transparency is transforming | Columns - Weatherford Democrat - March 19th, 2020
- NIST shared dataset of tattoos thats been used to identify prisoners - Naked Security - March 19th, 2020
- PATRIOT Act Morass: Gains and Stalled Reforms - Project On Government Oversight - March 19th, 2020
- COVID-19: Press Freedom and Government Transparency - RCFP - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - March 19th, 2020
- Trump Isn't the First President to Attack the Press - The Nation - March 19th, 2020
- Rat spotted in Vancouver, Washington - Nwlaborpress - March 19th, 2020
- The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Lawfare - March 5th, 2020
- The University's First Amendment Rights | Leadership in Higher Education - Inside Higher Ed - March 5th, 2020
- Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award - WTNH.com - March 5th, 2020
- Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Reason - March 5th, 2020
- Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post - Techdirt - March 5th, 2020
- Do Non-Lawmakers Have A First Amendment Right To Speak Before A Legislative Body? Its A Question In Texas After A Man Testified Wearing A Profane... - March 5th, 2020
- Guest Column: On the 1st Amendment and restrictive resolutions - Oak Ridger - March 5th, 2020
- Sen. Ron Wyden, Rep. Ro Khanna introduce bill to reform Espionage Act - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - March 5th, 2020
- Cuellar holds off primary challenge, and other late calls - Politico - March 5th, 2020
- San Francisco expected to pay $369,000 settlement to Bryan Carmody - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - March 5th, 2020
- EARN IT Act: Instant Reaction - Morning Consult - March 5th, 2020
- Judge: Hearings for Fauquier teen charged in fatal family shootings will remain closed - Fauquier Times - March 5th, 2020
- 'Second Amendment Preservation Bill' Passes Wyoming Committee - Kgab - March 5th, 2020
- Bloomberg Slayed the Myth That Money Buys Elections - National Review - March 5th, 2020
- Negligible 'Never Bernie' - National Review - March 5th, 2020
- Stars and Stripes and the First Amendment - Columbia Journalism Review - February 15th, 2020
- New Graphic Tobacco Warnings and the First Amendment - Newswise - February 15th, 2020
- COMMENTARY: Focus on when the First Amendment protects ... and when it doesn't - Crow River Media - February 15th, 2020
- Its Illegal to Take Drone Photos of Cattle Feedlots in Texas. Press Groups Say That Violates the First Amendment. - The Texas Observer - February 15th, 2020
- FIRST FIVE: Focus on when the First Amendment protects and doesn't - hays Post - February 15th, 2020
- Our View: Be more inclusive for all holy days - The Register-Guard - February 15th, 2020
- How to save journalism - The Boston Globe - February 15th, 2020
- Pelosi, a Ripped Speech, and the Records Debate - FactCheck.org - February 15th, 2020
- Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? - The Fulcrum - February 15th, 2020
- ZACHARY: First Amendment advocates warn of media oversight - Tifton Gazette - January 27th, 2020
- Letters mis-stating the First Amendment and Trump flags - Villages-News - January 27th, 2020
- Witness to the PERSECUTION | Columns | Journal Gazette - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette - January 27th, 2020
- Other voices: Money, speech and truth - St. Paul Pioneer Press - January 27th, 2020
- Over the line in comedy | My View - Santa Fe New Mexican - January 27th, 2020
- Social Studies in the real world: Raceland teacher takes his class on field trip to fiscal court - The Independent - January 27th, 2020
- Reporters Face New Threats From the Governments They Cover - The New York Times - January 27th, 2020
- The First Amendment and Supreme Court | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item - January 25th, 2020
- President Trump Restores the Original Intent of the First Amendment - CNSNews.com - January 25th, 2020
- Letter to the Editor: Supporting the We the People Amendment - Wicked Local - January 25th, 2020
- Gazette opinion: Senate restrictions are an insult to First Amendment - KPVI News 6 - January 25th, 2020
- Could Trump Muzzle John Bolton? The Limits of Executive Privilege, Explained - The New York Times - January 25th, 2020
- Throwback Thursday: The First Amendment's Freedom of Assembly in Action in Nutley NJ - TAPinto.net - January 24th, 2020
- It Violates the First Amendment to Criminalize Immigration Advocacy or Giving Advice to Illegal Immigrants - Cato Institute - January 24th, 2020
- Shattering the First Amendment - The Riverdale Press - January 24th, 2020
- The Unacknowledged Clash Between the Supreme Courts Interpretation of the Religion Clauses and the - Justia Verdict - January 24th, 2020
- Guest column: First Amendment on the docket at the Supreme Court - The Mercury - January 24th, 2020
- City of Scottsdale and The Satanic Temple take the stands in First Amendment-based case - FOX 10 News Phoenix - January 24th, 2020
- Hearing Wednesday: EFF Urges Court To Rule That Blogger's Opinion of Open Source Licensing Agreement is Protected by the First Amendment - EFF - January 24th, 2020
- Choice in education could have impact on 2020 vote - Boston Herald - January 24th, 2020
- GOP candidates outline platforms in their first 14th District debate - Northwest Herald - January 24th, 2020
- HB 2093 Introduced to Nullify Any Violation of 2nd Amendment Laws - Prescott eNews - January 24th, 2020
- Salman Rushdie, Jonathan Franzen, Amy Tan and Over 160 More Call for Babson Adjunct Professor to Be Reinstated - Boston magazine - January 24th, 2020
- AG Ferguson leads multistate lawsuit over new Trump Administration effort to allow release of 3D-printed guns - Access Washington - January 24th, 2020
- Lobby Day attracts 2A advocates from the NRV and beyond - Southwest Times - January 24th, 2020
- Op-ed: Did the University forget about the first amendment? - The Michigan Daily - January 18th, 2020
- Facebooks Soleimani Ban Flies in Face of First Amendment - Common Dreams - January 18th, 2020
- Trump Takes Steps to Protect the Right to Pray in Schools - CNSNews.com - January 18th, 2020
- Breaking down the first amendment lawsuit against Florida State Representative Spencer Roach - Fox 4 - January 18th, 2020
- 10 years later, Americans stand opposed to Citizens United | TheHill - The Hill - January 18th, 2020
- Letter: It's the First Amendment that needs sanctuary protection - Verde Independent - January 18th, 2020