The Hatch Act's Restrictions on Running for Local Government Office

There is one local government conflict of interest that is often ignored because it was created at the federal level by a federal statute. The statute is known as the Hatch Act of 1939 (Title 5, Subchapter III), originally known as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities (they don’t make statute names like they used to).

The Hatch Act limits the political activities of local government employees who are principally employed by programs funded in whole or in part by the U.S. or a federal agency. Here are the most important prohibited activities (for more information on permitted and prohibited activities, click here):

Cannot be a candidate for public office in a partisan election (nonpartisan elections are okay, which is good for most municipalities, but not most counties)
Cannot use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
Cannot directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The last two of these are generally seen as unethical, and this is often stated explicitly in an ethics or conduct code, or in state law. But the first can be a surprise, as it seems to have been recently in Terre Haute, Indiana.

According to an article in the Tribune-Star, Duke Bennett was elected mayor of Terre Haute last year, and the losing candidate then went to court, arguing that Bennett had not been eligible to run for mayor because he worked as director of operations at an agency that received money for its Head Start program, although he had almost nothing to do with that program.

The court found that Bennett had been subject to the Hatch Act when he ran for mayor, but would no longer be in violation on the day he took office as mayor. A Solomonic decision, if there ever was one. It effectively undermines the Hatch Act. Both parties have appealed.

This part of the Hatch Act seems absurd. Why shouldn’t a Head Start employee be able to run for municipal office? This clearly wasn’t the result the Act originally sought. It was seeking to end patronage and the use of federal funds to affect elections. But the Act was taken to the Supreme Court twice and was upheld both times.

In any event, local governments with partisan elections should keep this in mind, and such a problem should be brought up when a candidate announces, not after he has been elected.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics