79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–172 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HATCH ACT REFORM ACT OF 

2009 

JUNE 19, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. TOWNS, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1345] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to 

whom 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, report favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

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

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 3 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 4 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 4 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 4 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 5 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 5 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 5 

Unfunded Mandates Statement .............................................................................. 5 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 5 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 5 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 6 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 6 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

1 A Leak in the Hatch Act, Roll Call (Aug. 2, 2006) (online at 

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52—16/ath/14593–1.html). 2 Id. 

3 Norton Bill Would Ease Some Hatch Act Rules, Roll Call (Mar. 22, 2007) (online at http:// 

www.rollcall.com/issues/52—98/news/17674–1.html). 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1345, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 

2009, was introduced by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton 

on March 5, 2009. The bill amends the federal Hatch Act provisions 

applicable to both federal and state and local employees to ensure 

that employees of the District of Columbia are subject to the same 

restrictions on political activity that currently apply to all other 

state and local government employees. Unlike any other U.S. jurisdiction, the District of Columbia and its employees are subject to 

the Hatch Act provisions that apply to federal employees, rather 

than those that apply to states and localities. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In 1939, Congress originally enacted legislation known as the 

Hatch Act, which together with subsequent amendments, limited 

the political activities of federal employees, employees of the District of Columbia, and certain employees of state and local governments. The Hatch Act was intended to eliminate partisan political 

activity among government employees in order to assure that public institutions functioned fairly, effectively, and without undue political interference. 

In October 1993, the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1992 

were enacted to modify the Hatch Act to permit federal employees 

to take an active part in political management and partisan political campaigns while off duty. Despite these changes, Congress retained provisions of the law which subject District of Columbia employees to the same Hatch Act restrictions as federal employees. 

These restrictions were maintained without regard to the fact that 

the District had previously been granted the authority to self-govern and enact its own local laws. 

While the 1993 amendments to the Hatch Act exempted the District of Columbia Mayor, members of the City Council, and the Recorder of Deeds from its restrictions, they did not include exemptions for other local elected officials such as members of Advisory 

Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) or members of the former District of Columbia Board of Education. Current law has caused confusion about the applicability of the Hatch Act to District officials. 

In recent years, some ANC commissioners, who are elected, unpaid 

officials, have been affected by the uncertainty over their status 

under the Hatch Act. 

In 2006, an ANC Commissioner withdrew from the race for City 

Council chairman after the federal Office of Special Counsel (OSC) 

stated that it is unlawful under the Hatch Act for ANC Commissioners to campaign for a partisan public office.1 The OSC noted, 

however, that it was uncertain whether it had enforcement authority under the Hatch Act because ANC commissioners are elected officials.2 Moreover, other ANC commissioners have run for partisan 

office without opposition from the OSC.3 The OSC has also found 

that elected members of the former DC Board of Education were 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

4 A Leak in the Hatch Act, supra note 1. 5 Id. 

technically prohibited by the Hatch Act from seeking partisan office, but the OSC cited a similar lack of enforcement authority regarding Board members.4 The OSC has noted that the current 

legal regime is unclear with regard to District elected officials.5 By 

contrast, Section 1502(c) of the Hatch Act, which is applicable to 

state and local governments, specifically exempts an individual 

holding elective office. 

H.R. 1345 attempts to rectify this disparate treatment by placing 

District of Columbia employees under the same Hatch Act restrictions that apply to all other states and localities. By placing the 

District of Columbia under state and local Hatch Act provisions, 

H.R. 1345 would subject employees of the District of Columbia government to the same restrictions on partisan and political activity 

that currently apply to all employees of state and local governments who work in connection with programs financed in whole or 

in part by federal loans or grants. The Hatch Act restricts such 

state and local employees from running for partisan elective office, 

using their official authority or influence to impact election results, 

and directly or indirectly engaging in political coercion. 

H.R. 1345 would also remove the provisions of title 5 that specifically apply Hatch Act restrictions on federal employees to employees of the District of Columbia. H.R. 1345 would make implementation of its amendments to the federal Hatch Act contingent upon 

the District of Columbia government enacting a local version of the 

Hatch Act to place restrictions on the political activities of District 

employees. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Earlier versions of H.R. 1345 (H.R. 1572, H.R. 4969) were introduced in previous Congresses. H.R. 1572 was introduced on March 

27, 2007, and referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, 

Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. H.R. 4969 was introduced on March 15, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee held a markup of 

the bill on September 21, 2006, and ordered the bill reported by 

unanimous consent. 

H.R. 1345 was introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes 

Norton on March 5, 2009, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Federal 

Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. The Committee held a markup of H.R. 1345 on June 4, 2009, and by unanimous consent ordered the bill discharged from the Subcommittee 

on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. 

The Committee then ordered H.R. 1345 reported by voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

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

Reform Act of 2009. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

6 5 U.S.C. § 1501(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 Section 1501(1) of title 

5, U.S.C., to include the District in the section of the Hatch Act 

covering states, territories, and possessions of the United States. 

Subsection (b) of Section 2 would amend Section 7332(1) of title 5, 

U.S.C. to remove the employees of the District from the portion of 

the Hatch Act applicable to federal employees. 

Under Section 2, District employees would be subject to the same 

restrictions on political activity that are applicable to state and 

local employees, including restrictions on running for elective office, 

using their official authority or influence to impact election results, 

and directly or indirectly engaging in political coercion. These 

Hatch Act provisions apply to state and local employees 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.6

Section 3. Effective date 

Section 3 would make H.R. 1345 effective on the effective date 

of legislation to be enacted by the District of Columbia government 

in order to restrict the political activities of District employees. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments to H.R. 1345 were offered or adopted in Committee. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Thursday, June 4, 2009, the Committee met in open session 

and favorably ordered H.R. 1345 to be reported to the House by a 

voice vote. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

No roll call votes were taken. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to terms and conditions of employment or access to public 

services and accommodations. 

H.R. 1345 is not applicable to the legislative branch in relation 

to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and Clause 

(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 

Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected 

in the descriptive portions of this report, including the need to subVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:13 Jun 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR172.XXX HR172

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

ject District of Columbia employees to the same restrictions on political activity that are applicable to state and local employees of 

other jurisdictions under the Hatch Act, and to eliminate confusion 

caused by current law. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including the requirement that the District of Columbia enact its own 

local version of the Hatch Act to restrict the political activities of 

District employees. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 1345. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 of the Constitution of the United States grant the Congress the power to 

enact this law. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement on whether the 

provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement, the Committee has received a letter from 

the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 1345 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in Clause 9(d), 

9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

1345. However, Clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under Section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and Section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of Clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and Section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 1345 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

JUNE 9, 2009. 

Hon. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, 

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, 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 2009. 

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 2009 

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 principle 

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. 

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. 

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

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, 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, 

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

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

PART II—CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 15—POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CERTAIN STATE 

AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1501. Definitions 

For the purpose of this chapter— 

(1) ‘‘State’’ means øa State or territory¿ a State, the District 

of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States; 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART F—LABOR-MANAGEMENT AND 

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 73—SUITABILITY, SECURITY, AND CONDUCT 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 services or an 

individual employed or holding office in the government of the 

District of Columbia; 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS