U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–010 

" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–339 

Calendar No. 627 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HATCH ACT 

REFORM ACT OF 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 1345 

TO AMEND TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ELIMINATE THE 

DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 

THE ‘‘HATCH ACT’’ 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. LANDY, Chief Counsel 

ELYSE F. GREENWALD, Professional Staff Member 

BRYAN G. POLISUK, Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMANDA WOOD, Minority Director for Governmental Affairs 

THOMAS A. BISHOP, Minority Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need ................................................................................... 1 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 4 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 5 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 5 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 627 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–339 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HATCH ACT REFORM ACT 

OF 2010 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1345] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (H.R. 1345) to amend title 5, United 

States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘Hatch Act,’’ having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Hatch Act prohibits certain federal, state and local government employees, including employees of the government of the District of Columbia, from engaging in specified political activity. 

Since 1940, the Act has subjected D.C. government employees to 

the same restrictions as federal employees. H.R. 1345 would, however, amend the Hatch Act to apply to D.C. government employees 

the same laws that govern state and local government employees 

rather than those governing federal employees. To ensure that D.C. 

government employees still face appropriate restrictions on partisan political activity, H.R. 1345 would not take effect until after 

D.C. adopts a law governing such activities. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Federal employees have faced restrictions on their political activities since the earliest days of the Republic. The Jefferson Administration, for example, issued an order stating that although it 

is the: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume 10, pp. 98–99 (1899). 

2P.L. No. 76–252 (1939) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7321 et seq.). 

3P.L. No. 76–753 (1940) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1501). 

4See 5 U.S.C. 1502. For more information on how OSC interprets these restrictions, please see http://www.osc.gov/haStateLocalfaq.htm. Federal employees and officials may not engage 

in the activities described in the text, but also face a number of other restrictions. They generally may not solicit or discourage participation in any political activity of anyone who has 

business pending before their agencies. In addition, they may not engage in partisan campaign 

activity on federal property, on official duty time, while wearing a uniform identifying them as 

a federal official or employee, or in a government vehicle. (5 U.S.C. § 7323). For more information on further and less restricted employees, please see http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm. 5P.L. No. 76–753 (1940) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7322). 

6P.L. No. 93–198 (1973) (codified at D.C. Code § 1–201.01 et seq.). 

7P.L. No. 76–753 (1940). 

right of any officer (federal employee) to give his vote at 

elections as a qualified citizen . . . it is expected that he 

will not attempt to influence the votes of others nor take 

any part in the business of electioneering, that being 

deemed inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution.1

In 1939, increased concerns about partisan political activity of 

certain federal employees led Congress to pass what has become 

known as the ‘‘Hatch Act.’’ 2 The Hatch Act, as originally passed, 

restricts the political activities of executive branch employees in 

the federal government. In passing the Hatch Act, Congress affirmed the view that partisan activity of government employees 

must be limited if federal laws, institutions and programs are to 

be administered in a fair and transparent manner. 

One year later, Congress amended the Hatch Act to add a new 

section to restrict certain state and local government employees— 

those with jobs connected to activities financed in whole or in part 

by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency— 

from engaging in specified political activities.3 Currently, covered 

state and local employees face a slightly narrower set of restrictions than federal employees. They may not run for office in a partisan election, use their official authority to influence an election, 

or attempt to coerce a state or local employee to make a political 

contribution.4 Because Congress exercised direct control over the 

District of Columbia at the time of the 1940 amendments, Congress 

placed D.C. government employees under the provisions applicable 

to federal employees instead of categorizing them as state and local 

employees.5

The role of the D.C. government, and therefore its employees, 

has evolved significantly since the 1940 Hatch Act amendments. A 

series of changes that culminated in the landmark 1973 Home Rule 

Act, which provided the District the powers of local self-government,6 have made D.C. government employees more similar to 

state and local employees rather than to federal employees. 

Congress has previously recognized the need for the Hatch Act 

to accommodate the unique nature of the D.C. government and its 

employees. In 1940, at the same time that Congress placed D.C. 

government employees under Hatch Act coverage, it exempted 

‘‘commissioners’’ and ‘‘the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia’’ from coverage under the Act.7 Moreover, one year after enacting the D.C. Home Rule law in 1973, Congress amended the 

Hatch Act to exempt the newly-created positions of Mayor of the 

District of Columbia, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the City 

Council of the District of Columbia, and members of the City CounVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:37 Oct 05, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR339.XXX SR339

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

8P.L. No. 93–268 (1974) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7324). 

cil.8 These exemptions are similar to those granted to elected state 

and local officials under the current Hatch Act. 

The Committee concludes it is now time to more precisely align 

the Hatch Act’s mandates with the current structure of the D.C. 

government. Accordingly, H.R. 1345 would amend the Hatch Act to 

place employees of the District of Columbia under the provisions of 

the Hatch Act that apply to state and local government employees. 

D.C. government employees not covered by Hatch Act would still 

face restrictions on political activity, but the D.C. Council would 

determine the scope of those restrictions. To preclude a period of 

unfettered political activity in the D.C. government workplace, H.R. 

1345 states that it would not go into effect until the District enacts 

a law governing the political activities of employees of the D.C. government. 

In consultation with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the 

independent federal agency authorized to investigate and pursue 

violations of the Hatch Act, the Committee recognized the need to 

make several changes to H.R. 1345 to clarify the District of Columbia’s coverage under Hatch Act. Senator Akaka offered an amendment to that effect which was adopted. The amendment added ‘‘the 

District of Columbia, or an agency or department thereof’’ to the 

definition of ‘‘state or local agency’’ and added the District of Columbia to several other provisions. These additions were made to 

further ensure that D.C. employees would be covered under provisions of the Hatch Act applicable to other state and local government employees. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 1345 was introduced by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton on March 5, 2009. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported the bill to the full House on June 9, 2009, 

and on September 8, 2009, the House, under a motion to suspend 

the rules, agreed to H.R. 1345 by a voice vote. 

On September 8, 2009, H.R. 1345 was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On May 17, 2010, the Committee considered H.R. 

1345 at a business meeting. Senator Daniel Akaka offered an 

amendment that inserted references to the District of Columbia in 

several subsections of the Hatch Act. The Committee adopted the 

amendment and ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably 

by voice vote. Members present for both actions were Senators 

Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, Burris, Collins, 

Brown, Voinovich and Graham. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

The short title of the bill is the District of Columbia Hatch Act 

Reform Act of 2010. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

Section 2. Employees of the District of Columbia to be subject to the 

same restrictions on political activity as apply to state and local 

employees 

Subsection (a) of Section 2 would amend 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501, 1502, 

and 1506 to subject employees of the government of the District of 

Columbia to the same restrictions on partisan political activity that 

currently apply to state and local government employees under the 

Hatch Act. 

First, this subsection would amend 5 U.S.C. § 1501(2) to add the 

District of Columbia, or an agency or department of the District of 

Columbia, to the definition of a ‘‘state or local agency.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

§ 1501(4) would also be amended to ensure individuals employed by 

an educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or 

system supported in whole or in part by the District of Columbia 

are exempt. This exclusion is granted to similarly-situated employees of state and local governments. 

This subsection also would amend 5 U.S.C. § 1502(c)(3) to exclude 

the duly elected head of the District of Columbia from prohibitions 

on seeking elective office that apply to other state or local government employees. 

Subsection 2(a) of the bill would also amend 5 U.S.C. § 1506(a)(2) 

to allow the Merit Systems Protection Board to issue an order to 

withhold federal funds if the Board finds that an employee ordered 

removed for violating the Hatch Act has been reappointed in the 

District of Columbia within 18 months. 

Subsection (b) of Section 2 would amend 5 U.S.C. § 7322(1) to remove individuals employed or holding office in the government of 

the District of Columbia from provisions of the Hatch Act applicable to federal employees. 

Section 3. Effective date 

Section 3 states that the Act will take effect on the effective date 

of a law enacted by the District of Columbia government which 

places restrictions on political activities of employees of the government of the District of Columbia and will apply to actions taking 

place on or after that date. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. The Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) states that there are no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no 

costs on State, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains 

no other regulatory impact. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

MAY 27, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1345, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2010. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1345—District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2010 

H.R. 1345 would amend the Hatch Act to remove some restrictions on the political activities of District of Columbia government 

employees. Under current law, such employees are subject to the 

same restrictions as federal employees under the Hatch Act. The 

bill would amend federal law to subject District of Columbia government employees to the same Hatch Act restrictions imposed on 

other employees of state and local governments whose principal 

employment is connected to an activity financed by funds from the 

federal government. CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 

H.R. 1345 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

On June 9, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1345, 

the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009, as ordered 

reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform. The two versions of the legislation are similar, and CBO’s 

estimate of their costs is the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic and 

existing law, in which no change is proposed, is shown in roman): 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE: GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES 

PART II—CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

CHAPTER 15—POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CERTAIN STATE 

AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES 

SEC. 1501. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purpose of this chapter— 

(1) ‘‘State’’ means a State or territory or possession of the 

United States; 

(2) ‘‘State or local agency’’ means the executive branch of a 

State, municipality, or other political subdivision of a State, or 

an agency or department thereof, or the District of Columbia, 

or an agency or department thereof; 

(3) * * * 

(4) ‘‘State or local officer or employee’’ means an individual 

employed by a State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in 

whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States 

or a Federal agency, but does not include— 

(A) an individual who exercises no functions in connection with that activity; or 

ø(B) an individual employed by an educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which 

is supported in whole or in part by a State or political subdivision thereof, or by a recognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural organization¿ 

(B) an individual employed by an educational or research 

institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by— 

(i) a State or political subdivision thereof; 

(ii) the District of Columbia; or 

(iii) a recognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural 

organization. 

SEC. 1502. INFLUENCING ELECTIONS; TAKING PART IN POLITICAL 

CAMPAIGNS; PROHIBITIONS; EXCEPTIONS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Subsection (a)(3) of this section does not apply to— 

(1) the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of a State or an individual authorized by law to act as Governor; 

(2) the mayor of a city; 

(3) a duly elected head of an executive department of a State 

øor municipality¿, municipality, or the District of Columbia 

who is not classified under a Stateø or municipal¿, municipal 

or the District of Columbia merit or civil-service system; or 

(4) an individual holding elective office. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

SEC. 1506. ORDERS; WITHHOLDING LOANS OR GRANTS; LIMITATIONS. 

(a) When the Merit Systems Protection Board finds— 

(1) that a State or local officer or employee has not been removed from his office or employment within 30 days after notice of a determination by the Board that he has violated section 1502 of this title and that the violation warrants removal; 

or 

(2) that the State or local officer or employee has been removed and has been appointed within 18 months after his removal to an office or employment in the same State (or in the 

case of the District of Columbia, in the District of Columbia) in 

a State or local agency which does not receive loans or grants 

from a Federal agency; 

the Board shall make and certify to the appropriate Federal agency 

an order requiring that agency to withhold from its loans or grants 

to the State or local agency to which notice was given an amount 

equal to 2 years’ pay at the rate the officer or employee was receiving at the time of the violation. When the State or local agency to 

which appointment within 18 months after removal has been made 

is one that receives loans or grants from a Federal agency, the 

Board order shall direct that the withholding be made from that 

State or local agency. 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

CHAPTER 73—SUITABILITY, SECURITY, AND CONDUCT 

SUBCHAPTER II—POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 

SEC. 7322. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purpose of this subchapter— 

(1) ‘‘employee’’ means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in— 

(A) an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or 

(B) a position within the competitive service which is not 

in an Executive agency; øor¿ 

ø(C) the government of the District of Columbia, other 

than the Mayor or a member of the City Council or the Recorder of Deeds;¿ 

but does not include a member of the uniformed øservices;¿ services 

or an individual employed or holding office in the government of the 

District of Columbia; 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS