An Unwanted Escape Hatch : Keep federal civil service clearly and formally above politics

Federal employees, like all Americans, have the right to vote, to belong to a political party and to make monetary contributions to candidates they support. For 53 years, however, federal employees have been wisely barred from further political activity. They may not serve as officers in a political party or manage political campaigns or work as volunteers in a candidate’s campaign office. They may not solicit contributions from others for a candidate. And, not least in importance, they may not themselves run for elected office.

These restrictions have been the law of the land since 1939 when the Hatch Act, named for Sen. Carl Hatch (D-N.M.), was passed. Many federal employees have welcomed the prohibition. It excuses them from “voluntary” political activity that, given their vulnerability to actions by elected officials, might easily be coerced. The act also preserves public respect for the civil service by keeping it clearly above politics.

But opposition to the Hatch Act has never subsided. It has been thrice challenged, and thrice upheld, before the Supreme Court. In 1975 and 1990, Congress passed--and Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George Bush vetoed--bills for its repeal. Behind the challenges have been federal employee unions, notably the National Assn. of Letter Carriers, which have used their political influence with Democratic legislators against the Hatch Act. A great many federal employees are Democrats, and so Democratic legislators, the merits of the case aside, have a partisan reason to be sympathetic.

Minority group members are disproportionately numerous among federal employees as well, and one among the arguments for repealing the Hatch Act has been that that it reduces minority political power. Broadly speaking, the federal employees’ right to an irreducible minimum of political activity does need to be balanced with the taxpayers’ right to be preserved from, in effect, funding their own employees’ lobbying.

A recent, narrowly defeated House bill to revise the Hatch Act would have destroyed that balance, however, going so far as to permit employees of the Federal Election Commission, which monitors enforcement of election laws, to work in electoral campaigns. A new attempt to revise the act has reached the Senate. Refinements of the act may well be possible, but any proposed changes should be scrutinized skeptically. This is a law that has served the public good for half a century. Repealing it or even seriously weakening it should be out of the question.