Federal Spotlight

Hatch Act Changes Are A Bad Idea

By Joseph Young

Washington Star Staff Writer

Their intentions undoubtedly are the best. But the three Washingtonarea members of Congress who have co-sponsored legislation to overhaul the Hatch Act to give federal employes wide freedom of political activities may be doing the employes a grave disservice.

With one exception, in our more than 25 years of covering the government beat, we have never encountered a government worker who wanted the Hatch Act meaningfully changed. The one exception was an employe who was active in politics in a southern Virginia community before he came to Washington to get a federal job.

FEDERAL AND postal employe union leaders are all in favor of overhauling the law restricting the political activities of government workers, but it's doubtful that most employes

are.

The unions favor overhaul because it would increase their clout with Congress and the political party in power in the White House.

But it would mean the end of the merit system as we know it today.

The attacks on the merit system that occurred during the Nixon administration would be mere child's play compared to what would happen if the Hatch Act were radically changed.

Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., chairman of the House Civil Service subcommittee on the Hatch Act, has sponsored legislation that would drastically revise the law in order to permit government workers to participate actively in politics.

Among those co-sponsoring the bill are Democratic Reps. Herbert Harris and Joseph Fisher of Northern Virginia and Gladys Spellman of Prince Georges County.

THEY ARE TRYING to be as fair as possible on the legislation and have arranged special night hearings of the subcommittee on April 14 to hear from federal employes who live in Northern Virginia and April 15 for workers in nearby Maryland.

The bill, while giving employes wide freedom of political activity, also has provisions to protect them from being forced to engage in politics if they don't want to.

However, as Chairman Robert Hampton of the Civil Service Commission has pointed out, this is a contradiction in terms. If federal employes were given the right to freely engage in politics, they would be on shaky ground indeed if they refused their bosses' orders to engage in political activities.

Actually, as Hampton notes, these would not have to be overt orders, but merely subtle ones.

In other words, employes hoping for meaningful careers and promotions would know that they would have to play the political game to get ahead.

BUT EVEN THEN their careers would be jeopardized. For whenever a new administration took over with a change in political parties, these employes would face the ax.

As for those employes who refused to get involved in politics, their jobs probably would be safe enough, but they would have to resign themselves to run-of-the-mill jobs and lacklustre careers.

So no one would win but the politicians, who would use government workers to help perpetuate themselves in office.

Government workers should make their views known to their representatives in Congress, who will be glad to hear them.

Exhibit No. 2

By BARRY KALB

Star-News Staff Writer

A three-judge federal panel today ruled, 2-1, that the Civil Service Commission has been acting unconstitutionally in forbidding federal employes from engaging in certain types of political activity.

The judges concluded that provisions of the Hatch Act prohibiting federal employes from taking "an active part in political management or in political campaigns," are "impermissibly vague and over-broad,' and ordered the commission to stop enforcing these provisions.

However, implementation of today's ruling, which potentially affects millions of federal employes over the country, was stayed pending an expected appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment on whether such an appeal woula be made, although it seems likely. The high court is currently in recess and would have to hold a special session

if it decides to tackle such a sweeping question before the upcoming national elections.

The Hatch Act generally prohibits federal and postal employes from actively engaging in partisan politics. This prohibition includes serving as officers of any political organization or being candidates for most offices, serving as precinct captains or in any other political capacity.

Employes are also prevented from working actively for any political candidate, distributing campaign literature or making speeches on behalf of candidates.

Today's ruling did not state specifically what types of activity should be allowed. It left open the question of whether federal employes can run for elective office.

Presumably, if the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, Čongress would have to enact new legislation stating permissable areas of political activity.

The suit was filed by the National Association of Letter Carriers, a union of postal employes with about 200,000 members, several county Democratic and Republican central committies in the Washington area, plus five individuals, all of whom stated that they were affected by the provisions of the act.

The U.S. Civil Service Commission and its three commissioners, chairman Robert E. Hampton, James E. Johnson and Ludwig J. Andolsek, were all named as defendents.

When the suit challenging the act was filed in March 1971, it asked that state employes covered by the Hatch Act also be included in any final decision.

Federal Employes Affected

But today's decision, written by U.S. District Court Judge Gerhard A. Gesell, with District Court Judge Barrington D. Parker concurring and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge George E. MacKinnon dissenting, set aside the question of state employes and affects only federal employes.

Gesell, while upholding the need for some kind of check on political activity by federal civil servants, stated that the prohibitions in the Hatch Act provisions in question "are worded in generalities that lack precision."

"There is no standard," Gesell wrote. "No one can read the act and ascertain what it prohibits."

He called the issue "a classic case of a statute which in its application has 'chilling effect' unacceptable under the First Amendment.”

He said the Civil Service Commission "has acted responsibly" in attempting to apply the provisions of the act fairly, but that its efforts were thwarted because the commis

sion "was given no authority under the act to accommodate rigidly incorporated prior rulings to the rapidly evolving court interpretations of the First Amendment.”

Gesell concluded that because of the statute's vagueness, federal employes could never be sure when they were violating its provisions, and stated:

"Ours is not a form of government that will prosper if citizens, particularly federal government servants, must live by the mottos 'Better be safe than sorry' and 'Don't stick your neck out.' "

Gesell suggested, but did not order, that the solution to the problem would be for Congress to state "with utmost clarity" which areas of political activity are impermissible.

Act 'Not Vague'

MacKinnon, in a 26-page dissent, said he felt that the act was not overly vague and that "the reasonable federal employe is provided an ascertainable standard of conduct that does not impermissibly infringe on his First Amendment freedoms."

He said he would merely order the commission to clarify its rulings on the subject.

Parker reserved the right to file a separate concurring opinion in the case, although his office said it is not known at this time whether he will do SO.

The suit was one part of a two-pronged attack on the Hatch Act by employe groups. Unions also have been seeking legislation in Congress to give government workers more political freedom, but no bills have emerged from committee in this session-partly because of concern on the part of some legislators about voter reaction, and partly because the lawmakers wanted to see what the court would do.