Abstract
This article examines the restrictions instated by the Hatch Act, a statute that prevents federal, state, and local employees from using their position or authority to influence elections. It also prohibits the candidacy for office for some government employees. While the author criticizes the restrictions imposed by the Act, there is support for the Act’s protections against coercion and inappropriate use of federal funds. The article analyzes the nuances of the Hatch Act and discusses perceivably negative effects of the Act on the political process, including the automatic disqualification of ideal candidates and a more restricted selection of candidates generally. The article then goes on to state reasons to believe the Hatch Act is unwise, such as its inability to survive modern constitutional scrutiny under a Pickering balancing test and the Anderson/Burdick test, as well as federalism concerns. The author discusses the strengths and weaknesses of current attempts to reform the Hatch Act and his own proposal for developing a conflict of interest standard which would provide a solution to the Act’s over-expansive scope as well as provide a more precise means of addressing the government’s specific interests in preventing partisanship and abuse of federal funds in the political process.
Recommended Citation
Jason C. Miller,
The Unwise and Unconstitutional Hatch Act: Why State and Local Government Employees Should be Free to Run for Public Office.,
34
S. Ill. U. L.J.
313
(2010).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol34/iss2/4