HASTIEHATCH ACT
Enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.A. 7324) curbs the political activities of employees
in federal, state, and local governments. The law’s goal is to enforce political neutrality
among civil servants: the act prohibits them from holding public office, influencing elections, participating in or managing political campaigns, and exerting UNDUE INFLUENCE on government hiring. Penalties for violations range from warnings to dismissal. The law’s restrictions have always been controversial. Crit-
ics have long argued that the act violates the FIRST AMENDMENT freedoms of government employees. The U.S. Supreme Court has dis-
agreed, twice upholding the law’s constitutional-
ity. Congress has amended the Hatch Act several
times since 1939. In 1993, a number of amend-
ments to the act sought to limit the effects of
political patronage in federal hiring.
The Hatch Act grew out of nineteenth-
century concerns about the political activities of
federal employees. As early as 1801, President
THOMAS JEFFERSON issued an EXECUTIVE
ORDER that said federal workers should neither
“influence the votes of others, nor take part in
the business of electioneering.” He saw such
activities as “inconsistent with the spirit of the
Constitution.” Jefferson was primarily con-
cerned with what government employees did
while in office; subsequently, concerns devel-
oped in another area. Throughout the nine-
teenth century, appointments to the federal
bureaucracy were viewed as the natural spoils of
political success. The prevalent awarding of jobs
for political loyalty created a so-called spoils sys-
tem and, ultimately, a reaction against it.
The long process of neutralizing politics in
federal employment continued into the twenti-
eth century. Attempts began with the Pendleton
Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403), a comprehensive anti-
patronage law named after its sponsor, Senator
GEORGE H. PENDLETON, who argued that “the
spoils system needs to be killed or it will kill the
republic” (14 Cong. Rec. 206 [1882]). The law
sought to eliminate patronage by insulating fed-
eral employees from coercion. It provided that
they could not be fired for refusing to work on
behalf of a candidate or for choosing not to
make campaign contributions. In 1907, Presi-
dent THEODORE ROOSEVELT instituted even
broader controls through Executive Order 642.
Its two major prohibitions addressed employees
in the executive civil service and the larger class
of federal civil servants. The former were forbid-
den to use their authority to interfere in elec-
tions, and the latter were barred from taking
part in political management or campaigning.
This order marked the first time that federal
employees had limits placed on their First
Amendment right to engage in political speech.
The passage of the Hatch Act in 1939 com-
bined the prohibitions of earlier executive
orders and the Pendleton Act. The act includes
restrictions on political activity for the whole
federal bureaucracy. The act stated, “[N]o officer
or employee in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the
Federal government, or in any agency or depart-
ment thereof, shall take any active part in politi-
cal management or in political campaigns” (ch.
410, § 9(a)). The measure received bipartisan
support in a response to concern about the NEW
DEAL—President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT’s
economic program for relieving the effects of
the Great Depression—which significantly
increased the ranks of federal employees. Con-
gress wanted to rein in Roosevelt’s power, espe-
cially following allegations that he had used
Works Progress Administration employees to
influence the 1938 congressional elections.
Opponents of patronage in general and enemies
of Roosevelt in particular thought the New Deal
represented an opportunity for the president to
meddle with elections while perpetuating his
hold on the White House.
Congress increased the scope of the Hatch
Act in 1940 by extending its restrictions to
employees of state and local governments that
receive federal funds (Act of July 19, 1940, ch.
640, 54 Stat. 767), although it cut back certain
applications of this measure in 1974. At various
times it has also increased or decreased the
penalties for Hatch Act violations—notably, by
including suspension without pay as a lesser
penalty. In 1993, Congress made yet more
changes aimed at curtailing patronage in jobs:
amendments to 5 U.S.C.A. § 3303 restricted
elected officials from making unsolicited recom-
mendations for job applicants seeking federal
employment. States, meanwhile, have broadly
incorporated the principles of the Hatch Act in
their own statutes, which have also undergone
revision over time.
Debate over the Hatch Act has been vigorous
since its inception. Critics have portrayed it as an
unfair restriction on the First Amendment rights
of government employees, especially violative of
