Opinion ID: 453465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The A(3) Ban on Employee Participation in On-Premises Registration

Text: 13 Section A(3) prohibits postal employees, whether on-or off-duty, from participating in any voter registration activity conducted on postal premises. As a consequence, the restriction covers all employees without regard to their union membership and without distinction between partisan and nonpartisan activity. According to the USPS, the purposes of this restriction are (1) to avoid any possible appearance that the Postal Service is involved, through its employees, in the political process, and (2) to prevent coercion or the appearance of coercion of other postal employees who otherwise might feel pressured either to register to vote or to register a certain way if approached on postal premises by their coworkers. 8 The District Court, applying the balancing test of Pickering v. Board of Education, 9 held that these governmental interests outweighed the First Amendment interests of postal employees, and therefore upheld the constitutionality of section A(3). 10 14 We find it unnecessary to reach the question of the constitutionality of section A(3). It is the settled practice of the federal courts not to decide constitutional questions where a case may be decided on other grounds. 11 Throughout these proceedings, the Union has argued that section A(3) violates not only the First Amendment, but also the rights of employees under the Hatch Act and its regulations to engage in nonpartisan activities. 12 We think that there is a serious question whether, in view of the Hatch Act regulations, the Postal Service may restrict the right of individual employees to participate in nonpartisan voter registration drives, particularly where such drives are conducted by civic organizations and similar groups which have been granted access to postal facilities for that purpose. Because the District Court failed to consider this question before reaching the constitutional issue, we vacate its judgment with regard to section A(3) and remand for an initial determination on the nonconstitutional question. 15 The Hatch Act bars federal employees from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns. 13 In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 14 the Supreme Court made clear that this prohibition forbids only the partisan activity of federal personnel deemed offensive to efficiency: 16 It is only partisan political activity that is interdicted. It is active participation in political management and political campaigns. Expressions, public or private, on public affairs, personalities and matters of public interest, not an objective of party action, are unrestricted by law so long as the government employee does not direct his activities toward party success. 15 17 The Postal Service appears to acknowledge that section A(3) prohibits USPS employees from engaging in non-partisan as well as partisan voter registration. 16 It is difficult on the record before us to see how such a restriction can be justified under the Hatch Act, at least as applied to registration in public areas of the post office in which the Postal Service allows nonpartisan groups to conduct registration. 18 The Hatch Act defines the phrase an active part in political management or in political campaigns to mean those acts that were prohibited by determinations of the Civil Service Commission (CSC or Commission) before July 19, 1940. 17 In United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 18 the Supreme Court stated that this provision was intended to deprive the Commission of authority to fashion[ ] a more expansive definition of the kind of conduct that would violate the prohibition against taking an active part in political management or political campaigns. 19 Instead, the Court found, Congress intended to adopt the Commission's 1940 restatement of the law of forbidden political activity, as developed and refined in subsequent restatements and regulations issued by the Commission. 20 19 Those regulations, which currently appear at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 733, clearly recognize a right of federal employees to take part in the sort of registration drives permitted under section A(1). Consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Hatch Act in Mitchell and Letter Carriers, the Hatch Act regulations distinguish between partisan and nonpartisan activities, and prohibit only enumerated sorts of partisan conduct. 21 Although voter registration is not included on the list of prohibited activities, some Commission decisions have held that employees may not take part in partisan voter registration efforts; the Commission has never held, however, that participation in nonpartisan registration drives violates the Hatch Act. 22 Indeed, part 733.111(a)(4) of the regulations expressly allows employees to [p]articipate in the nonpartisan activities of a civic, community, social, labor, or professional organization, or of a similar organization. The regulations further provide that [a]ll employees are free to engage in political activity to the widest extent consistent with the restrictions imposed by law and this subpart. 23 20 Thus, the Hatch Act regulations clearly recognize the right of employees to participate in nonpartisan voter registration activities. By prohibiting all postal employees from taking part in any voter registration on postal premises, regardless of its partisan or nonpartisan character, section A(3) seems to interfere with this right. For these reasons, we believe that the appellant has raised a serious issue concerning the validity of section A(3). 21 On remand, the District Court should determine whether there is any legal basis for the A(3) restriction. In particular, the trial court should consider whether, as the appellees contend, section A(3) can be justified as an exercise of the authority to impose additional restrictions delegated to the heads of agencies by 5 C.F.R. Sec. 733.111(b). 24 That provision states in relevant part: 22 The head of an agency may prohibit or limit the participation of an employee or class of employees of his agency in an activity permitted by paragraph (a) of this section, if participation in the activity would interfere with the efficient performance of official duties, or create a conflict or apparent conflict of interests. 25 23 For an agency regulation to be valid under 5 C.F.R. Sec. 733.111(b), several requirements must be satisfied. First, the regulation must be issued by [t]he head of an agency. Second, without deciding the point for this court, we note that Judge Harold H. Greene recently ruled in American Federation of Government Employees v. Pierce 26 that 24 [u]nder the plain language of [5 C.F.R. Sec. 733.111(b) ], the head of an agency may not adopt an across-the-board prohibition with respect to an otherwise authorized activity ...; any such provision must be limited to an employee or class of employees. 27 25 Third, the restriction must have as its purpose the efficient performance of public duties or the avoidance of a conflict or apparent conflict of interest. 28 Finally, it is clear that regulations issued by the heads of agencies under 5 C.F.R. Sec. 733.111(b), no less than those issued by the Commission and its successor, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), must be limited to partisan activity of the sort that Congress intended the Hatch Act to restrict. 29 26 There is a question whether the A(3) restriction satisfies these criteria. First, the record indicates that the guidelines were issued by the USPS Delivery Services Department rather than by [t]he head of [the] agency. 30 Second, in prohibiting all postal employees from participating in on-premises registration, section A(3), like the regulation at issue in AFGE v. Pierce, does not appear to be limited to an employee or class of employees. 31 27 Finally, on the present record, it does not appear to us that there are any legitimate justifications for the A(3) ban, at least as applied to public areas such as lobbies. As we have noted, the Postal Service attempts to justify the A(3) restriction as necessary (1) to avoid an appearance that the Postal Service was involved, through its employees, in the political process, and (2) to prevent potential coercion of employees to register or to register in a certain way. We believe that these justifications are extremely tenuous as applied to registration in public areas. We find it difficult to see how the public could conceivably lose confidence in the political neutrality of the Postal Service if off-duty, out-of-uniform postal employees were permitted to take part in voter registration drives conducted in postal lobbies by nonpartisan organizations under section A(1). Similarly, the likelihood that employees could be coerced into registering for a particular party if their coworkers are allowed to take part in such nonpartisan registration appears to us equally remote. In any event, it seems to us better assessed after development of facts bearing on the likelihood of coercion under these circumstances. 28 Thus, on the record before us, we can find no valid justification for a restriction on the right of employees under the Hatch Act regulations to participate in non-partisan voter registration conducted by civic and similar organizations in public areas such as postal lobbies. 32 However, because this issue was not considered by the District Court or fully explored at oral argument, we remand the case for an initial determination by the trial court.