Talk:Hatch Act

Comey's Actual Language

About "reopening". Comey's letter, first sentence: ".... I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of Secretary Clinton's personal mail server." That's what he wrote. Quibble away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerIAS (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Unclear information in the 'Background' section

Hey all,

I think there's unclear information in the 'Background' section.

"Widespread allegations that local Democratic Party politicians used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the congressional elections of 1938 provided the immediate impetus for the passage of the Hatch Act."

As the reader, I do not understand how Democratic Party politicians used employees. How were they used? Here's the following sentences; they don't do much to clear up the point:

"Criticism centered on swing states such as Kentucky,[1] Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Pennsylvania, Republicans and dissident Democrats publicized evidence that Democratic politicians were consulted on the appointment of WPA administrators and case workers and that they used WPA jobs to gain unfair political advantages.[2] In 1938, a series of newspaper articles exposed WPA patronage and political contributions in return for employment, prompting an investigation by the Senate Campaign Expenditures Committee, headed by Sen. Morris Sheppard, a Texas Democrat.[3]"

I don't know anything about this topic (and don't have time to learn right now), but am I correct in thinking this could be improved?

JollyGreenJesus (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

party workers were given WPA paychecks for construction projects but instead they did political canvassing for the party. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hatch Act of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328215201/http://www.filsonhistorical.org/programs-and-publications/publications/the-filson-club-history-quarterly/1972-76.aspx to http://www.filsonhistorical.org/programs-and-publications/publications/the-filson-club-history-quarterly/1972-76.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hatch Act of 1939. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205221645/http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2007/pr07_04.htm to http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2007/pr07_04.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Current restrictions

The Current restrictions section includes a note saying:

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

It looks to me as if this ought to cite a more specific source, probably one or both of the following: [1], [2].

Also, the section probably ought to be named simply Restrictions; see WP:DATED re Current. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions to the Hatch Act

7324. Political activities on duty; prohibition
  (b)(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection
    may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection
    (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid
    for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.

  (2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employee—
    (A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position con-
    tinue outside normal duty hours and while away from the
    normal duty post; and
    (B) who is—
      (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 relations with foreign
      powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
107 STAT. 1004 PUBLIC LAW 103-94—OCT. 6, 1993

Characterization of "main provision" in the lead sentence

The Act is titled An Act to prevent pernicious political activities. The lead sentence of the act itself (§1, not numbered) reads:

An Act to prevent pernicious political activities Be it enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or to attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives at any election…

That speaks of "any person", and I would call that the "main provision" of the Act. §2 of the Act focuses on federal employees, §3-8 focus on of any person, §9 focuses on employees of the executive branch.

It looks to me as if the lead sentence is wrong and has been wrong since this second edit to the article on on July 30, 2004. The rest of the article follows the focus of the lead section on federal employees rather than on any person.

Perhaps there is a SCOTUS decision not mentioned in the article restricting application of the act to federal employees. (??) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to change. Is it the title or the content of the Lead section itself? The provisions itself has been amended in 1993 and again in 2012. The 1993 version specifically clarifies the applicability of the law. Bulhis899 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah. That was not clear from the article -- or at least I did not see it there. I had looked at Hatch Act Text linked in the External links section of the article. After reading the above, I looked at the 1993 version you linked; I presume that §7321. Political participation there applies to the entire act and I see that it pertains specifically to "employees", and that appears not to have been changed by the 2012 amendment. I suggest that all that be made clearer early on in the article. I thought it better to bring this to the attention of regular editors of this article on the talk page than to jump into the article and make ham-handed ill-informed changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Hatch Act was codified in to law as 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326. I decided to add that in to the infobox. We can modify the Lead too, if you want. Maybe something like:?

The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits all employees in the executive branch of the federal government[1], except the president and vice president[2], from engaging in some forms of political activity. It went into law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was amended in 1939 to, among other things, clearly define the employees covered under the act as well as to restore Federal civilian employees' rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in some political processes. It was most recently amended in 2012 to scale back the provision forbidding certain State and local employees from seeking elective office, and to modify the penalties enacted by the Act.

Now that I think of it, maybe we should move the page to refer to "The Hatch Act" instead of the current Hatch Act of 1939? Using "of 1939" implies talking specifically about that one act passed in 1939. Given that the spirit of the article talks about the prohibition of Federal Employees participating in certain political processes, I think it's suited that way. Bulhis899 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave it to editors more familiar with this than I to work out appropriate changes. Thanks for your attention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump campaign

I came here looking for referenced explanation of whether Trump's recent use of the White House grounds for campaign activities, as well as other campaign activities by executive branch employees, violate the Hatch act. I don't see it, and I do not have the resources to research it. All I see are opinions, rather than reliably sourced information. The article will doubtless be consulted by numerous readers during the campaign and in the future regarding this issue, and improvements would be greatly appreciated. Edison (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

2017-2020/Trump years section?

Instead of 2006-present, maybe split into: 2006-2016 (if I counted right, just 10 in 11 years), 2017-2020 (8 in less then 4 years; actual individual accusations against ~3 dozen people). A few articles:

• https://www.propublica.org/article/its-illegal-for-federal-officials-to-campaign-on-the-job-trump-staffers-keep-doing-it-anyways Excerpt: "Hatch Act violations were relatively rare in the previous two presidential administrations. Two cabinet officials were cited for Hatch Act violations during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency."
• https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/congress-must-stop-white-house-officials-hatch-act-violations/
• https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/sixteen-trump-administration-officials-violated-the-law-to-boost-trump-campaign-in-october/
• https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/16-trump-officials-committed-overt-hatch-act-violations-in-october-report/
• https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2020/10/29/elizabeth-warren-trump-hatch-act-violations
• https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/six-white-house-officials-hatch-act/index.html

Doug Grinbergs (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What are "restricted federal employees"?

The table in the "current restrictions" section of the article has two columns, one for "regular federal employees" and one for "restricted federal employees", with no indication of what those categories mean. Perhaps restricted employees are those who work for the "Agencies and employees prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity" listed in the following section? If so, this should be made clearer, and perhaps the order of these two sections should be swapped, so the term "restricted federal employees" can be defined before it is used. Andylatto (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The "Restricted Federal Employees" title is a link to the bottom section and also has a citation that explains what and why "restricted federal employees" exist. So yes, you are right on positing what it means. You are also free to swap them, as I'm not opposed to that. Bulhis899 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• Hatch Act of 1939 → Hatch Act
• Hatch Act → Hatch Act (disambiguation)

– The 1939 Act is the primary topic here: for instance, in this Google Scholar search, 19 of the first 20 results refer to it. It receives more pageviews by easily an order of magnitude, and a hatnote referencing the 1887 Act is adequate for disambiguation purposes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clear primary topic of the term by all of our measures. BD2412 T 23:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support move as the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per above. Tisnec (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exemption language appears to cover cabinet members

The 2nd item of exemption from the act (in section "Provisions" in the article) sounds as if it is trying to exempt Cabinet members. Yet, most of the notable violations are by cabinet members. There should be an explanation of this apparent contradiction. Micler (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)