GovernmentExecutive.com

Federal employees have fewer political restrictions than state and local government workers, witnesses at a Thursday hearing told lawmakers who are considering whether to amend the Hatch Act to allow some public employees in small cities and towns to run for partisan political office.

"While today's hearing is narrowly focused on the Hatch Act and its impact on state and local government employees, the larger question at hand is to what extent should citizens be restricted from pursuing elected public office for the purpose of promoting efficient and effective governance," said Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., who chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia.

At issue is legislation Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., introduced in December 2007. The bill would allow state and local employees to run for partisan offices such as city council or sheriff in cities with 100,000 or fewer residents. These government employees currently are prohibited from partisan campaigning, and if found guilty of violating the Hatch Act, they would be fired and could not be reinstated for 18 months. Federal employees who are found guilty of Hatch Act violations can receive suspensions, rather than being fired, although termination is also a possible punishment.

Stupak said the changes were necessary because in small towns and cities in Michigan, too many qualified candidates were unable to stand for office because they worked in an office or with a program that received federal funding, no matter how small the amount. He said Hatch Act violations became a political weapon to discourage candidates.

"We had at least three or four sheriff's candidates, and the sergeant was going to challenge the incumbent sheriff, where the incumbent raised the Hatch Act, and these people were considered disqualified," Stupak said. "It's a constant problem, especially in small rural areas. Everyone knows you, and it's hard to find good, qualified people who are willing to do it, and then people raise the Hatch Act."

Stupak said he was open to other suggestions for alleviating the problem of finding qualified candidates, and that he chose the cap of 100,000 residents simply because it would solve the problem in his district.

Jack Maskell, a legislative attorney in the American law division of the Congressional Research Service, said the law was more permissive for federal employees, allowing them to run as independents in partisan elections in communities where there are large numbers of federal employees. He also noted that federal employees who work part-time are covered by the Hatch Act only when they are on duty and can compete in partisan elections while they are off duty.

"There is no similar exception for state or local employees in communities or areas where the number of covered state and local employees may severely limit the pool of qualified and interested candidates for local offices," Maskell said. "There is no similar exemption for part-time or intermittent state or local employees."

The Democratic lawmakers on the committee said the specter of an overly aggressive Hatch Act raised serious constitutional issues, and they would review the matter.

"I certainly agree that first amendment rights are significantly curtailed [by the current restrictions]," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C. "One would want to inquire, in return for what?"