BURST(NEXSTAR) – Partisan messages recently posted to government websites have prompted complaints that several federal officials may have violated the Hatch Act, a law passed in 1939 to restrict certain political activities by federal employees.
“The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation,” reads an overview posted by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee quickly sent a letter to the Special Counsel calling for an investigation into possible Hatch Act violations over language posted to the websites of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The messages, which respectively blame “Senate Democrats” and “the Radical Left” for the shutdown and its effects on the American people, are still appearing on the sites weeks into the shutdown.
Public Citizen, a D.C.-based watchdog group, also filed a complaint with the (OSC) over the language on these government sites (among others), calling them “obvious” violations of the Hatch Act
“[…] It raises the question: ‘How on Earth does HUD think they can get away with this?’” Public Citizen wrote of the agency’s language. “The answer is that the Trump administration has managed to neuter the ethics enforcement offices in the executive branch.”
The same watchdog organization has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over a video the DHS requested to be played at TSA checkpoints across the country. In the video, Noem blamed Democrats for the shutdown and any effects it may have on travel.
Senate Democrat Maria Cantwell also demanded an investigation into Noem’s video and DHS’s request for airports to display the video for passengers. (Many major airports, meanwhile, have refused, citing its partisan language.)
Complaints regarding potential Hatch Act violations, meanwhile, are filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, whose primary goal is the protection of “federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices,” the agency says. When contacted about the recently filed complaints, the Hatch Act Unit of the OSC responded with the following message:
“The Hatch Act Unit is out of the office due to a lapse in appropriations and will respond upon return.”
A communications officer with the OSC was also “out of the office due to a lapse in federal appropriations” and unable to respond.
If the OSC were operating at full capacity, potential Hatch Act violations would be investigated and decided upon by the agency. In cases where a federal employee was found to be in violation, charges are sent to be adjudicated by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the Executive branch,” which has also ceased operations amid the shutdown.
Some federal employees, however, are considered “further restricted” from engaging in partisan activity during their official duties, a category that includes anyone employed with the FBI, or the National Security Division, and “all political appointees,” according to the Department of Justice. In these cases, the OSC presents the case directly to President Trump “for appropriate action.”
Seeing as Trump is also the president who appointed the heads of the SBA, HUD and DHS, it’s therefore possible that no actions would be taken against the leaders of these agencies if indeed a Hatch Act violation did occur. But he could theoretically decide on a “range of disciplinary actions, including removal from federal service, reduction in grade, debarment from federal service for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, letter of reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1000,” according to the OSC.
Experts cited by the Associated Press, meanwhile, felt the messages were indeed violations of the Hatch Act.
“These agencies are using federal resources, taxpayer-funded websites, to engage in partisan political messaging,” Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and law professor at Washington University, told the Associated Press in an interview. “The Hatch Act prohibits federal officials from using official resources that way.”
One expert cited by the AP disagreed that the Hatch Act was violated. Donald K. Sherman, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), claimed the language used by the accused officials did not specifically relate to an elector or a candidate, but rather a policy difference, which wasn’t covered under the Hatch Act.
Still, Sherman said the postings might violate other ethics laws and are “wildly inappropriate.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.