Hatch Act FAQs

As a general matter, OSC staff may not disclose the name of the person who filed a Hatch Act complaint. OSC’s program files, including Hatch Act complaints, contain personal or sensitive information, which is generally protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act. Release of the names of individuals who have reported suspected Hatch Act violations is generally considered to be an unwarranted invasion of privacy that could interfere with OSC’s law enforcement efforts by subjecting such individuals, on whom OSC relies to report potential violations, to possible harassment or reprisal for doing so. For more information about this policy please refer to
1/26/2004 Policy Statement on Disclosure of Information from OSC Program Files (OSC49a).

A Hatch Act investigation is an administrative matter. Hatch Act matters are adjudicated before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which is an administrative agency.

No. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3111(c)(1), an unpaid student intern is not considered a federal employee for any purpose other than those specifically listed therein, of which the Hatch Act is not one. Accordingly, because unpaid student interns are not federal employees, they are not covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.

No. For purposes of the Hatch Act, the term "federal employee" means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in one of the following: 1) "an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office"; or, 2) "a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency." 5 U.S. Code § 7322. Additionally, under the Hatch Act, the term "federal employee" does not include "a member of the uniformed services or an individual employed or holding office in the government of the District of Columbia. "

Yes.

See 39 U.S.C. § 410(b)(1).

No.

Members of the uniformed services are not covered by the Hatch Act. However, if you are a reservist and a federal civilian employee, you are covered by the Hatch Act.

Yes.
The Hatch Act defines employee as “any individual, other than the President and
the Vice President, employed or holding office in: an Executive agency other
than the Government Accountability Office . . . .” 5 U.S. Code § 7322. Thus, an employee detailed to the
legislative branch remains an employee as defined by the Hatch Act. As such, an
employee detailed to the legislative branch remains covered by the Hatch Act
and subject to the Act’s restrictions on political activity.

Less Restricted Employees:  The Hatch Act does not prohibit a less restricted employee from serving as a presidential elector.  Presidential electors are selected by a political party to vote in the Electoral College for that party's nominees for president and vice president.  Electors do not have any role in government other than casting their electoral vote.  Thus, electors hold positions within a political party, rather than elected positions within the government, which is permissible for less restricted employees.

Less restricted employees should be aware that Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that “no . . . person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."  We recommend that less restricted employees who are interested in serving as electors consult with outside counsel or their state elections office about this constitutional issue.

Further Restricted Employees:  No.  Further restricted employees are prohibited from acting in concert with a political party or candidate for partisan political office.  Because serving as a presidential elector involves accepting a political party's nomination for the position and then voting on behalf of that party in the Electoral College, the Hatch Act prohibits further restricted employees from serving as electors.

A partisan political election is one in which any candidate is to be nominated or elected as representing a party any of whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected, but does not include any office or position within a political party or affiliated organization. Examples of political parties that received votes in the last Presidential election are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green Parties. Thus, a partisan election is one in which any candidate is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party. An election is partisan even if only one candidate represents a political party and the others do not. The prohibition against being a candidate in a partisan election does not include running for an office or position within a political party or affiliated organization. However, note that employees who are further restricted under the Hatch Act may not hold a position or office in a political party or affiliated group because the Act prohibits them from taking an active part in partisan political management.

In some circumstances, an election designated as nonpartisan under state or local law may be considered partisan for purposes of the Hatch Act.  See OSC’s advisory opinions here for more information on when a nominally nonpartisan election may be considered partisan under the Hatch Act.

Generally, federal employees may not be candidates in partisan elections. However, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has promulgated a federal regulation designating specific localities where federal employees residing there may be independent candidates in local partisan elections. The localities listed in the regulation are those where the majority of voters are federal employees or where special circumstances exist such that it is in the domestic interest to permit federal employees to run for local partisan political office. OPM’s list of designated localities can be found at 5 C.F.R. § 733.107.

Employees who live in a designated locality must ensure that they maintain an independent candidacy when running for local partisan political office in that designated locality.  See OSC’s advisory opinion here for additional information.

Generally, federal employees may not be candidates in partisan elections, even if they run as political independents. Only those federal employees, including further restricted employees, residing in localities specifically designated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may run as independents in local elections that are otherwise partisan. OPM’s list of designated localities can be found at 5 C.F.R. § 733.107.

Employees who live in a designated locality must ensure that they maintain an independent candidacy when running for local partisan political office in that designated locality.  See OSC’s advisory opinion here for additional information.

No.
The exception allowing federal employees who reside in designated localities to be independent candidates in partisan elections applies only to elections for local offices in the locality where the employee resides. Thus, an employee residing in a designated locality may not be a candidate for state office, if the election is partisan.

Yes. Although the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from being candidates in partisan elections, it does not prohibit them from holding partisan elective office. Thus, if an individual holds elected office when he becomes employed by the federal government, he may serve out the remainder of his term. Likewise, a federal employee may be appointed to fill a vacancy in a partisan elective office. In both of these situations, however, the federal employee may not seek to retain the position by way of a partisan election.

Yes. Federal employees may be appointed to a partisan political office. Although the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from being candidates in partisan elections, it does not prohibit them from holding partisan elective office. Thus, the Hatch Act does not prohibit a federal employee from being appointed to a partisan elective office. The federal employee, however, may not seek to retain the position by way of a partisan election without first resigning from federal employment.

A nonpartisan election is one in which none of the candidates is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party any of whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected. 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. Examples of political parties that received votes in the last Presidential election are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green Parties. The Hatch Act does not prohibit covered employees from being candidates in nonpartisan elections.

In some circumstances, an election designated as nonpartisan under state or local law may be considered partisan for purposes of the Hatch Act.  See OSC’s advisory opinions here for more information on when a nominally nonpartisan election may be considered partisan under the Hatch Act.

An employee who is a candidate for public office in a nonpartisan election is not barred by the Hatch Act from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions for his or her own campaign.

Because the election is nonpartisan, the Hatch Act would not prohibit you from using your official title in your campaign materials. However, you should check with your agency ethics official about other rules or regulations that may govern such activity.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes, less restricted employees may volunteer for a partisan candidate's campaign. Less restricted employees are permitted to participate in political activities to the extent not expressly prohibited by the Hatch Act. Examples of permitted activities that constitute political campaigning include: initiating or circulating nominating petitions; canvassing votes in support of or in opposition to a partisan political candidate; endorsing a partisan political candidate; attending and being active at political rallies and meetings; distributing campaign literature; and taking an active part in managing a partisan candidate's political campaign.

Note: Less restricted employees (except certain employees appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and some employees paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President), however, are prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, while wearing an official uniform or insignia, or while using a government vehicle. Likewise, less restricted employees may not use their official authority or influence to interfere with the result of an election or solicit, accept, or receive political contributions at any time. Hence, less restricted employees must be mindful that the above-listed activities could violate the Act if the employees engaged in the activities at the wrong time, or in the wrong place or manner. If a less restricted employee has a question about a specific political activity, he or she can contact OSC to obtain further guidance.

Further Restricted Employees: No. The Hatch Act expressly prohibits further restricted employees from taking an active part in partisan political
management or political campaigns. Accordingly, further restricted employees
may not campaign for partisan candidates in concert with a political party,
candidate for partisan political office or a partisan political group.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes. A less restricted employee may stand outside a polling place on Election Day and hand out brochures on behalf of a partisan political candidate or political party.

Further Restricted Employees: No. A further restricted employee may not distribute brochures for a political party to people arriving at a polling place on Election Day.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes. A less restricted employee may endorse or oppose a partisan political candidate or a candidate for political party office in a political advertisement, broadcast, campaign literature, or similar material.

Further Restricted Employees: No. The Hatch Act expressly prohibits further restricted employees from taking an active part in partisan political management or political campaigns. Accordingly, further restricted employees may not endorse or oppose a candidate for political party office in a political advertisement, broadcast, campaign literature, or similar material if such endorsement or opposition is done in concert with such a candidate, political party, or partisan political group.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes. The Hatch Act applies to federal civilian employees so long as they are employed by an executive branch agency. The only prohibition that is affected by an employee's leave status is 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a)(1): an employee may not engage in political activity while they are on duty. Because an employee is not on duty while they are on leave, this prohibition would not apply. However, while on leave, the employee remains subject to the other prohibitions in the Hatch Act. Thus, an employee on leave is still prohibited from engaging in political activity while in a government building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle. § 7324. Moreover, while the Act permits less restricted employees to actively participate in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns, those employees are nevertheless prohibited, at all times, from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election; knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions from any person; being candidates for public office in partisan elections; and knowingly soliciting or discouraging the political activity of any individual with business before the employee's agency. § 7323(a)(1)-(4).

Thus, while the Hatch Act does not prohibit a less restricted employee from taking leave to volunteer for a partisan political campaign, the employee is still prohibited from, among other things, soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions while they are on leave.

Further Restricted Employees: Yes. The guidelines set forth above, for less restricted employees, apply, but with an added limitation. Unlike less restricted employees, the Hatch Act prohibits further restricted employees from taking an active part in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns. This means further restricted employees may not, at any time, engage in political activity on behalf of or in concert with a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan public office. For instance, taking an "active part" would include: distributing material created by a partisan candidate, political party, or partisan political group; speaking at a political rally organized or sponsored by such entities; or serving as a campaign volunteer. It also would include engaging in political activity through a medium sponsored or controlled by a political party, partisan political group, or partisan candidate, such as by endorsing a candidate in a commercial sponsored by one of these entities.

Thus, the Hatch Act prohibits a further restricted employee from volunteering for a partisan political campaign even if the employee is on leave.

Less Restricted Employees: It depends. Federal employees may actively participate in partisan political campaigns and partisan political management to the extent not expressly prohibited by the Hatch Act. Thus, an employee may serve as treasurer for a partisan political campaign or other partisan political group, provided he does not solicit, accept, or receive political contributions from any person (or engage in any other of the Act's prohibited activities). For example, an employee serving as the treasurer of a partisan political campaign may not allow his name to appear anywhere on a letter soliciting political contributions for an organization, party, or candidate, including in the letterhead of such a letter. Some states require the campaign treasurer's name to appear on all campaign materials, including solicitations. Thus, an employee living in one of those states would be prohibited from serving as a campaign treasurer. He could, however, hold another position within the campaign if the duties of which would not entail activities prohibited by the Hatch Act.

Further Restricted Employees: No. Further restricted employees may not take an active part in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns. Thus, they may not hold office in any partisan political organization or work for a partisan political campaign in any capacity. Accordingly, an employee who is further restricted under the Act may not serve as a treasurer for a PAC or for a candidate's partisan political campaign, regardless of whether the position would entail soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions.

Less Restricted Employees:  Generally yes.  The Hatch Act does not prohibit a less restricted federal employee from performing purely nonpartisan election administration duties on behalf of a state or local government, such as by serving as a municipal or county poll worker.   Performing such duties is not “political activity" as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 734.101.  However, other laws or regulations may apply.  Therefore, employees should consult with an agency ethics official to determine whether there are any other possible restrictions on serving as a poll worker on behalf of a state or local government, including whether employees may accept compensation for such service.

The Hatch Act also does not prohibit a less restricted employee from working at the polls on behalf of a political party, partisan political group, or partisan campaign, such as by serving as a poll watcher or challenger, but certain restrictions do apply.  Because volunteering on behalf of a political party, partisan political group, or partisan campaign is political activity, a less restricted employee may not do so while on duty, wearing an agency uniform or insignia, or using a government-owned or -leased vehicle.  Provided that the employee complies with these restrictions, the Hatch Act does not prohibit a less restricted employee from working at the polls on behalf of, or in coordination with, a political party, partisan political group, or partisan campaign.

Further Restricted Employees:  Possibly.  A further restricted employee is not prohibited from performing purely nonpartisan election administration duties on behalf of a state or local government, such as by serving as a municipal or county poll worker.  Some jurisdictions require that prospective poll workers identify their political party registration or affiliation during the application process.  Further restricted employees are not prohibited from listing their party registration or affiliation on application materials.  So long as the work the employee will perform on election day is purely nonpartisan and not on behalf of, or in coordination with, a political party, partisan political group, or partisan campaign, the Hatch Act would not prohibit the employee from working at the polls.  Further restricted employees should consult with an agency ethics official to determine whether there are any other possible restrictions on serving as a poll worker on behalf of a state or local government, including whether employees may accept compensation for such service.

Further restricted employees may not, however, work at the polls on behalf of, or in coordination with, a political party, partisan political group, or partisan campaign.  Accordingly, further restricted employees may not, for example, serve as poll watchers or challengers on behalf of a political party, partisan political group, or partisan campaign or otherwise act in concert with such a party, group, or campaign.

No.  Federal employees may not be candidates for election to a partisan political office.  Any office for which candidates are selected via a partisan primary is a partisan political office.

Generally not.  The Hatch Act prohibits employees from being candidates for election to a partisan political office.  A “partisan political office" is one for which any candidate is nominated or elected as representing a political party.  Thus, if any candidates are nominated by a political party—and even if a federal employee is not—then the election is for a partisan political office.

However, there are certain “designated localities" in which federal employees may run as independent candidates for local partisan political office.  OPM designates these localities and lists them in 5 C.F.R. § 733.107.  In order to maintain an independent candidacy, an employee generally may not (1) receive or advertise the endorsement of a political party, or (2) directly or indirectly work in concert with a political party to promote the employee's campaign.

OSC recommends that any employee interested in running for elected office contact OSC for information about how to ensure that their candidacy complies with the Hatch Act.

Possibly.  If political parties are not involved in the election, then the Hatch Act does not prohibit an employee from running in a nonpartisan election.

However, under the Hatch Act, an election designated as nonpartisan under state or local law may still be considered an election for “partisan political office" if any candidate (1) is endorsed by a political party, or (2) directly or indirectly works in concert with a political party to promote the candidate's campaign.  If any candidate is endorsed by a party, or if any candidate directly or indirectly acts in concert with a party to promote the candidate's campaign, then that candidate will be considered to be representing that party in the election.  In that case, the election is for a partisan political office.  An employee interested in running in a nominally nonpartisan election must ensure that no candidates in the election are running as representing a party.

OSC recommends that any employee interested in running for elected office contact OSC for information about how to ensure that their candidacy complies with the Hatch Act.

No.  Under governing case law, an election is for a partisan political office if any candidate works in concert with a party to promote the candidate's campaign.  Accordingly, even if an employee is not endorsed by a party, an employee may not, for example:  coordinate mailers, canvassing, or other campaign events with the party; accept volunteer or logistical support from a party; or seek and advertise the endorsement of party-affiliated groups, such as a party executive committee.

OSC recommends that any employee interested in running for elected office contact OSC for information about how to ensure that their candidacy complies with the Hatch Act.

Partisan political groups are defined in the Hatch Act as those groups that (1) are affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office in a partisan election, (2) are organized for a partisan purpose, or (3) engage in partisan political activity.  Under (1), any organization that is recognized by a national or state political party as a club, auxiliary, authorized committee, or other affiliated organization is a partisan political group.  Under (2), any organization formed to support or oppose one or more political parties—or a party's candidates for partisan political office—is a partisan political group.  As for (3), OSC evaluates organizations on a case-by-case basis.  When doing so, OSC considers several factors including, but not limited to, the following:  the organization's stated purpose, as reflected in its bylaws or charter, on its website, and in its other public materials; whether the organization expends its resources on political activity; whether the organization prominently advertises its political activity; the relationship between the organization and its affiliates, if any, that engage in political activity, such as whether they share a website, staff, or office space; and whether the organization has indicated on any government filings that it engages in political activity.

Possibly.  Many 501(c)(4) organizations, or “social welfare organizations," work primarily or exclusively on issue advocacy, in which case OSC would generally not find them to be partisan political groups.  Others, however, engage in some political activity, i.e., activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office.  In some cases, OSC has found that the amount of political activity a 501(c)(4) organization engages in is so extensive that the organization is a partisan political group for purposes of the Hatch Act.

For example, OSC has previously concluded that when a 501(c)(4) organization and a political action committee operate collectively under a single brand identity, engage in political activity under that shared identity, and also share an executive director, logo, website, and social media accounts, then that 501(c)(4) organization is a partisan political group.  In other cases, OSC might conclude that a 501(c)(4) organization operating independently is a partisan political group if, for example, it spends its resources on political activity, prominently advertises that political activity, and has indicated on government filings that it engages in political activity.  Such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.

Even if OSC concludes that a 501(c)(4) organization is not a partisan political group, employees should still be cautious about engaging in any 501(c)(4)-related activity while at work.  This is because some 501(c)(4) organizations that are not partisan political groups may still engage in some political activity, such as by endorsing a candidate for partisan political office.  Because the endorsement meets the Hatch Act's definition of political activity, the Hatch Act would prohibit an employee from, for example, sharing a press release announcing that endorsement while the employee is on duty or in the workplace.

Less Restricted employees: No. The Hatch Act prohibits employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions. A political contribution is defined as any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value, made for the purpose of promoting or opposing a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. The purpose of being a delegate to a party's convention is to vote for and support a particular candidate as the nominee of that party. Accordingly, contributions made to a delegate to help cover the costs of attending the national convention constitute political contributions for purposes of the Hatch Act. Because the Hatch Act prohibits employees from soliciting or accepting political contributions, the Act would prohibit a federal employee from soliciting or accepting contributions to help pay for the costs of attending a party convention as a delegate.

This question is not applicable to Further Restricted employees because they may not take an active part in partisan political management and thus may not serve as a delegate.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes. While the Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for public office in a partisan election, the Act does not prohibit an employee from being a candidate for party office. Thus, you may run for and hold office within a political party.

Further Restricted Employees: No. Because a further restricted employee may not take an active part in partisan political management, you may not run for or hold party office.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes. A federal employee may serve as a delegate, alternate, or proxy to a state or national party convention.

Further Restricted Employees: A further restricted employee may attend a party convention as a spectator, but the employee may not serve as a delegate or proxy, or address the convention, for example, to promote or oppose a candidate.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes. A less restricted employee may place in his or her front yard a sign or banner supporting a partisan political candidate.

Further Restricted Employee: Yes. A further restricted employee may place in his or her front yard a sign or banner supporting a partisan political candidate.

No.  A manager or supervisor may not authorize paid administrative leave for the express or understood purpose of allowing an employee to perform paid or volunteer work for a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office.  Doing so would, in effect, create a taxpayer-funded campaign staff.  That strikes at one of the core principles of the Hatch Act, namely that the power of the federal government should not be used to create “an unstoppable political machine."  H.R. Rep. No. 103-16, 8 (1993).

The relevant provision of the Hatch Act is 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1), which prohibits an employee from using his official authority or influence to interfere with or affect an election.  A manager or supervisor authorizing paid administrative leave for the purpose of allowing an employee to work for a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office undoubtedly benefits that party, group, or candidate.  Doing so is thus a misuse of official authority to interfere with or affect the result of an election.  Accordingly, a manager or supervisor may not authorize paid administrative leave for employees to work for a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office.

Note that an employee who is granted paid administrative leave for some other, permissible reason is not prohibited from engaging in political activity during that period of administrative leave.  The Hatch Act regulations expressly state that an employee is not “on duty" for purposes of the Hatch Act when in “excused or authorized absence" status.  Therefore, an employee does not violate the Hatch Act merely by engaging in political activity while on administrative leave.  Of course, an employee on administrative leave must otherwise comply with the Hatch Act, e.g., the employee may not solicit, accept, or receive political contributions in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3).  The concern we address here is a manager or supervisor granting paid administrative leave for the express or understood purpose of allowing an employee to engage in political activity, which is prohibited.

Less Restricted Employees:  Yes, but not while on duty, in the federal workplace, or when wearing an agency uniform or insignia.  Because less restricted employees are permitted to run for a political party office, the Hatch Act does not prohibit less restricted employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions to finance a campaign for political party office.  However, because running for political party office is still viewed as “political activity," employees may not engage in any campaign-related activities—including soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions—while on duty, in the federal workplace, or wearing an agency uniform or insignia.

Further Restricted Employees:  No, because further restricted employees may not run for political party office or otherwise take an active part in partisan political management.

Less Restricted Employees:  Yes, subject to some restrictions.  The Hatch Act does not categorically prohibit less restricted employees from taking an active part—including by holding a leadership position—with a political party, partisan political group, or the campaign of a candidate for partisan political office.  However, employees serving in such a position must otherwise comply with the Hatch Act.  This means that employees may not engage in any political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle.  Employees also may not use their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election—such as by asking a subordinate to support a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office—or solicit, accept, or receive political contributions.  If you have questions about a specific political activity, you may contact OSC to obtain further guidance.

Further Restricted Employees:  No.  The Hatch Act prohibits further restricted employees from taking an active part in political management or political campaigns.  This prohibition encompasses holding a leadership position with a political party, partisan political group, or the campaign of a candidate for partisan political office.

Less Restricted Employees:  Yes, unless the letterhead is used to solicit political contributions.  Because the Hatch Act prohibits an employee from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions, an employee's name may not appear on letterhead soliciting such contributions.  For more information on political contributions see the Fundraising section of these FAQs.

Further Restricted Employees:  No, because a further restricted employee is prohibited from holding a leadership position in a political party or campaign.

Less Restricted Employees:  Yes.  While the Hatch Act prohibits an employee from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions, it does not prohibit employees from handling or accounting for funds already received by a political party or campaign.  Less restricted employees are similarly not prohibited from signing checks on behalf of a political party or campaign.

Further Restricted Employees:  No, because a further restricted employee is prohibited from holding a leadership position in a political party or campaign.

No. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from soliciting or receiving political contributions, which includes inviting individuals to political fundraising events, at any time.

Less Restricted Employees: Although the Hatch Act would prohibit an employee from hosting or serving as a point of contact for a fundraiser, the employee is allowed to help organize a fundraiser. For example, the employee could stuff envelopes, set up tables for the event, select the menu, or hire entertainment. However, the employee must not personally solicit, accept, or receive political contributions.

Further Restricted Employees: No, you may not organize a political fundraiser.

No. An employee's name may not be shown on an invitation to such a fundraiser as a sponsor or point of contact.

Less Restricted Employees: A less restricted employee is allowed to give a speech or keynote address at a political fundraiser, as long as he or she is not on duty, appears only in his or her personal capacity, and does not solicit political contributions.

Further Restricted Employees: No. A further restricted employee may not speak at a political fundraiser.

An employee's name can be shown as a guest speaker. However, the reference should not in any way suggest that the employee solicits or encourages contributions. Invitations to the fundraiser may not include the employee's official title; although an employee who is ordinarily addressed with a general term of address such as "The Honorable" may use, or permit the use of, that term of address on the invitation.

Yes. Hatch Act coverage is not transferred to spouses or family members. Therefore, as long as your spouse is not covered by the Hatch Act because of his or her own employment, then he or she may host a fundraiser.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes, but only in a limited capacity. The Code of Federal Regulations states that a federal "employee may help organize a fundraiser including supplying names for the invitation list as long as he or she does not personally solicit, accept, or receive contributions." 5 C.F.R. § 734.208, example 9. By its very nature, a fundraiser is organized to solicit, accept, and receive contributions.

A Hatch Act-covered employee may assist his spouse with addressing envelopes, placing invitations in a U.S. mail receptacle, or cleaning/organizing the venue. A covered employee may even suggest names to his spouse to add to the invitation list; however, the suggested invitees must have a relationship with the spouse independent of the covered employee. For example, the covered employee can suggest a neighbor or church member who is known to both. The covered employee, however, cannot suggest his co-worker(s) if his spouse does not know the co-worker(s) well enough to invite them of his or her own accord. Covered employees cannot act or appear to act as the host of the event, including introducing any speakers or attendees.

Covered employees who find themselves in this situation are strongly encouraged to contact OSC for guidance as to their specific circumstances.

Further Restricted Employees: No. A further restricted employee may not assist at a political fundraiser, including behind the scenes activities.

Less Restricted employees: No. The Hatch Act prohibits employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions. A political contribution is defined as any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value, made for the purpose of promoting or opposing a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. The purpose of being a delegate to a party's convention is to vote for and support a particular candidate as the nominee of that party. Accordingly, contributions made to a delegate to help cover the costs of attending the national convention constitute political contributions for purposes of the Hatch Act. Because the Hatch Act prohibits employees from soliciting or accepting political contributions, the Act would prohibit a federal employee from soliciting or accepting contributions to help pay for the costs of attending a party convention as a delegate.

This question is not applicable to Further Restricted employees because they may not take an active part in partisan political management and thus may not serve as a delegate.

Yes. The Hatch Act prohibits employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions at all times. Thus, even when an employee is off duty and away from the workplace, he may not fundraise for a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. For example, the Hatch Act prohibits an employee from sending or forwarding an e-mail that solicits political contributions, even when the employee is at home and off duty.

Yes, in one limited circumstance.  Although the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from soliciting or receiving political contributions at any time, a federal employee who is a member of a union that has a political action committee (PAC) may solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the same union, as long as (1) the contribution is for the union PAC; (2) the other member is not a subordinate; and (3) the activity does not take place while the employee is on duty or in the federal workplace.

Yes. A federal employee may contribute to the campaign of a partisan candidate, or to a political party or organization, provided the employee does not do so while on duty or in the federal workspace.

No. Inviting subordinate employees to a political fundraiser would violate at least two provisions of the Hatch Act. First, inviting other individuals to a political fundraiser would violate the Act’s prohibition against soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions, even if the supervisory employee does not expressly ask the individuals to contribute money. Second, inviting subordinate employees to any political event would violate the Act’s prohibition against using one’s official authority or influence to affect the result of an election. Such conduct is inherently coercive, and violates the Act even if the supervisory employee does not threaten to penalize subordinates who do not attend or promise to reward those who do attend. Finally, inviting subordinates to a political fundraiser while at work would violate the Act’s prohibition
against engaging in political activity while on duty or in a federal building or vehicle.

Less Restricted Employees:  No.  While a less restricted employee may be a guest speaker at a political fundraiser, provided the employee is off duty, appears only in a personal capacity, and does not solicit political contributions, a less restricted employee may not participate in a “tiered" fundraiser where the employee is directly linked to the fundraising effort. In other words, tiered contribution schemes typically use the employee as an enticement for donors to make additional contributions in return for special access to the employee.  An employee's grant of special access to donors in exchange for an additional contribution is akin to the employee soliciting the contribution.  Thus, such an exchange violates the Hatch Act's prohibition against soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions.

Further Restricted Employees:  No, because further restricted employees may not be guest speakers at, or otherwise take an active part in, political fundraisers.

No.  Federal employees may not engage in political activity while on duty or in the workplace.  This restriction prohibits employees from wearing partisan political buttons or T-shirts while on duty or in the workplace.  It similarly prohibits employees from wearing face masks, face shields, gloves, or other PPE that feature, for example, a picture of a candidate for partisan political office, a campaign slogan, or the name or logo of a political party.

Because section 7324 of the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty or in a federal building, the Act generally would prohibit employees from displaying pictures of candidates for partisan public office in the federal workplace. 5 C.F.R. § 734.306, Example 16. However, we advise that an employee would not be prohibited from having a photograph of a candidate in his office if all of the following apply: the photograph was on display in advance of the election season; the employee is in the photograph with the candidate; and the photograph is a personal one (i.e., the employee has a personal relationship with the candidate and the photograph is taken at some kind of personal event or function, for example, a wedding, and not at a campaign event or some other type of partisan political event). Of course, an employee must not have a political purpose for displaying the photograph, namely, promoting or opposing a political party or a candidate for partisan political office.

No. Covered employees may not engage in political activity while on duty, in a government office or building, in uniform, or in a government vehicle. Wearing or displaying candidate, political party, or political group materials while on duty or in your work space qualifies as political activity. This prohibition extends to wearing or displaying such items in, for example, the cafeteria, lobby, or on-site gym of a federal building.

No. Covered employees may not engage in political activity while on duty, in a government office or building, in uniform, or in a government vehicle. Displaying campaign material qualifies as political activity.

Yes. An employee is allowed to park his or her privately owned vehicle with a bumper sticker in a government lot or garage. An employee may also park the car with a bumper sticker in a private lot or garage for which the employee receives a subsidy from his or her agency.

No. Some federal agencies allow employees to listen to the radio while they are at work. Merely listening to a radio program that is discussing politics while in the federal workplace, without more, is not a Hatch Act violation. Similarly, merely reading a book about politics or political candidates while in the federal workplace, without more, is not a Hatch Act violation. However, employees should make certain that the federal agency where they work does not have any internal policies prohibiting its employees from generally engaging in any of these activities while at work (i.e., listening to the radio, reading).

No. Watching, or allowing the broadcast of, stations such as Fox News or MSNBC in the federal workplace, without more, does not violate the Hatch Act. Thus, while some federal agencies may have televisions located in lobbies or other public areas within a federal workplace that are tuned to such stations the Hatch Act does not prohibit them from doing so.

An employee covered by the Hatch Act may not engage in political activity while on duty, in a government room or building, while wearing an official uniform, or using a government vehicle. 5 U.S.C. § 7324. Political activity is defined as activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for a partisan political office, or partisan political group. 5 C.F.R. § 734.101.

Thus, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from, among other things, displaying pictures of candidates for partisan public office in the federal workplace. 5 C.F.R. § 734.306, Example 16. If the President is a candidate for reelection, the Hatch Act prohibits an employee from displaying his or her photograph in the federal workplace, unless one of the two exceptions discussed below applies.

The first exception applies to official photographs of the President. The Hatch Act does not prohibit the continued display of official photographs of the President in the federal workplace, to include both public and employee work spaces. Official photographs include the traditional portrait photo of the President displayed in all federal buildings, as well as photographs of the President conducting official business (e.g., President meeting with heads of state). However, these official photographs must be displayed in a traditional size and manner and should not be altered in any way (e.g., the addition of halos or horns). Pictures that are distributed by the President's campaign or a partisan organization, such as the Democratic National Committee or Organizing for America, are not official, even if they depict the President performing an official act. Similarly, pictures downloaded from the internet or clipped from magazines or newspapers, screen savers, and life-size cutouts are not official photographs for purposes of this exception.

The second exception, which applies to all candidate photographs, concerns personal employee photographs. An employee would not be prohibited from having a photograph of any candidate in his or her office, if all of the following apply: the photograph was on display in advance of the election season; the employee is in the photograph with the candidate; and the photograph is a personal one (i.e., the employee has a personal relationship with the candidate and the photograph is taken at some kind of personal event or function, for example, a wedding, and not at a campaign event or some other type of partisan political event). An employee must not have a political purpose for displaying the photograph, namely, promoting or opposing a political party or a candidate for partisan political office.

If you have any questions, please contact our office for additional guidance.

Yes. The Hatch Act does not prohibit a federal employee from displaying photographs of a spouse or child even if the spouse or child is currently running for partisan political office, provided the photograph is not a campaign photograph.

A partisan political email is an email that is directed at the success or failure of a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race.

Yes. Simply receiving a partisan political email while at work, whether to a personal or government email account, without more, does not violate the Hatch Act. However, federal employees must not send or forward partisan political emails to others while on duty or in the workplace.

Yes. If a federal employee receives a partisan political email in his government email account, she may send that email to her personal email account while at work. Simply forwarding such an email to one’s personal email account, without more, does not violate the Hatch Act.

No. A federal employee cannot send or forward a partisan political email from either his government email account or his personal email account (even using a personal device) while at work.

Less Restricted Employees: Yes, but with some limitations. Federal employees are permitted to express their opinions privately and publicly on political subjects and participate in political activities to the extent not expressly prohibited by the Hatch Act. The Act expressly prohibits federal employees (except certain employees appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and some employees paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President) from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal building, or in a government vehicle. In addition, federal employees may not use their official authority or influence to interfere with the result of an election or solicit, accept, or receive political contributions at any time.

Accordingly, a federal employee may write a letter to the editor or post a comment on a blog endorsing a candidate, provided he does not do so while on duty or in a federal building or vehicle. Furthermore, he must endorse the candidate in his personal capacity and may not identify his federal position or office. Finally, the endorsement may not contain a request for political contributions or information about where voters may contribute, even if the employee makes the endorsement anonymously.

Further Restricted Employees: Similarly, further restricted employees may write a letter to the editor or post a comment to a blog in accordance with the conditions described above as long as the activity is not done in concert with a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office or a partisan political group.

Yes. Officials of labor organizations who have been given official time to perform representational duties are still considered to be "on duty" for purposes of the Hatch Act. Therefore, they may not engage in political activity while on official time to perform representational duties.

Yes. OSC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute complaints alleging a violation of the Hatch Act. 5 C.F.R. § 734.102. Thus, while a federal agency may discipline an employee for violating an internal policy, such action by the agency does not preclude OSC from also investigating and/or prosecuting the matter.

The Hatch Act does not prohibit federal employees from engaging in non-partisan political activities. Accordingly, employees may express their opinions about current events and matters of public interest at work so long as their actions are not considered political activity. For example, employees are free to express their views and take action as individual citizens on such questions as referendum matters, changes in municipal ordinances, constitutional amendments, pending legislation or other matters of public interest, like issues involving highways, schools, housing, and taxes. Of course, employees should be mindful of their agencies’ computer use policies prior to sending or forwarding any non-work related emails.

No. It is an improper use of official authority for a supervisor to send or forward a partisan political email to subordinates, at any time.

Generally, all federal employees may discuss current events, policy issues, and matters of public interest at work or on duty. Such discussions are usually not “political activity,” i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office. Therefore, the Hatch Act does not prohibit employees at any time, including when they are at work or on duty, from expressing their personal opinions about events, issues, or matters, such as healthcare reform, gun control, abortion, immigration, federal hiring freeze, etc. For example, while at work employees may express their views about healthcare reform, e.g., “I agree with healthcare reform.”

Note, however, that the definition of political activity is broader than express advocacy for or against a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office. In some cases, discussion that appears to be about current events or policy issues can be political activity. In other words, an employee cannot circumvent the Hatch Act prohibition against on-duty political activity by merely avoiding express advocacy for, or against, a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office. It is not necessary that an employee explicitly name a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office in order for a discussion to be political activity.

OSC considers all relevant facts and circumstances when investigating allegations that a discussion purportedly about current events or policy issues is, in fact, political activity. Among other factors, OSC looks to: (1) the content of the discussion; (2) the timing of the discussion; (3) the size and composition of the audience; (4) the relationship of the participants involved; (5) the context in which the discussion occurred; (6) the medium used (e.g., email, in-person discussion); and (7) whether a candidate or party is mentioned even if there is no express advocacy for or against the candidate or party. The following examples illustrate how these factors may apply to conduct that takes place while on duty or in the federal workplace.

Example 1: While on their lunch break, several employees discuss a recent proposal to eliminate their agency. The proposal was made by a candidate for partisan political office. However, the candidate’s name does not come up during the discussion and the discussion instead focuses on the negative effect that elimination of the agency would have upon the general public. Even though this proposal was made by a candidate for partisan political office, nothing about this discussion suggests that it is political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act.

Example 2: Several months prior to the election, an employee emails 10 colleagues an editorial critical of the proposal from Example 1. The employee adds “FYI – this proposal would be terrible for the country and we should do everything we can to stop it” to the body of the email. The editorial repeatedly identifies the candidate. OSC would need to investigate further in order to determine whether the employee engaged in political activity by sending the email.

Example 3: The day before the election, an employee shares the editorial from Example 2 on social media and specifically tags 50 coworkers in the post. The employee adds to the post “Something to think about tomorrow.” At this point the editorial is several months old. Although the editorial deals solely with a policy issue—the elimination of a federal agency—and neither the editorial nor the social media post explicitly advocates against the candidate, the employee’s post, which is clearly about the election and directed at swaying voters, is political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act.

OSC recognizes that many agencies disseminate news clips to employees.  And doing so, without more, does not violate the Hatch Act.  During an election season, however, many news articles are about candidates and elections, and the circulation of such materials could raise Hatch Act concerns.  Accordingly, agencies that circulate news clips to their employees should be mindful not to include articles, op-eds, or political commentary pieces that are directed at the success or failure of a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office.

The following are the best practices for agencies that disseminate news stories to employees:

• In consultation with agency ethics officials who have Hatch Act-related duties, develop procedures for selecting and approving articles for agency distribution.
• Designate an agency official responsible for reviewing news articles before dissemination.
• When including general headline news, be mindful of the Hatch Act, particularly in an election year when many news stories are about the election.
• Do not include political op-eds or other opinion pieces about candidates or political parties.
• Do not include news stories about an agency official's political activity, such as speaking at a campaign event or endorsing a candidate.

No.  Employees participating in virtual work-related conferences are subject to the same on-duty Hatch Act restrictions as when they attend meetings or communicate in-person with others at work.  Thus, for example, employees should not wear a campaign t-shirt or hat while participating in a work-related video conference call, and they should ensure that any partisan materials, like campaign signs or candidate pictures, are not visible to others during the call.

For more information please refer to OSC’s advisory opinion for teleworking employees, which is available here.

No.  While some email and other productivity tools allow users to add a profile picture, employees may not use the profile pictures associated with those platforms to show support for or opposition to a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan political office.  For example, employees may not use candidate images, campaign slogans, or political party symbols for profile pictures associated with official accounts or when communicating on official matters.

For more information please refer to OSC’s advisory opinion for teleworking employees, which is available here.

Yes. Simply identifying one’s political party affiliation on a social media profile, which also contains one’s official title or position, without more, is not an improper use of official authority.

Yes, federal employees may express their opinions about a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race (e.g., post, "like," "share," "tweet," "retweet"), but there are a few limitations. Specifically, the Hatch Act prohibits employees from:

• engaging in any political activity via Facebook or Twitter while on duty or in the workplace;
• referring to their official titles or positions while engaged in political activity at any time (note that inclusion of an employee's official title or position on one's social media profile, without more, is not an improper use of official authority); and
• suggesting or asking anyone to make political contributions at any time. Thus, they should neither provide links to the political contribution page of any partisan group or candidate in a partisan race nor "like," "share," or "retweet" a solicitation from one of those entities, including an invitation to a political fundraising event. An employee, however, may accept an invitation to a political fundraising event from such entities via Facebook or Twitter.****

Further Restricted Employees: Yes, further restricted federal employees also may express their opinions about a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race (e.g., post, "like," "share," "tweet," "retweet"), but there are a few limitations. In addition to the limitations above, the Hatch Act prohibits further restricted employees from:

• posting or linking to campaign or other partisan material of a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race;
• "sharing" these entities' Facebook pages or their content; and
• "retweeting" posts from these entities' Twitter accounts.

Yes, but subject to the limitations described in other related questions and the following guidelines. If a supervisor’s statements about a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race are directed at all of his Facebook friends or Twitter followers, e.g., posted on his Facebook page, then there is no Hatch Act violation. Such statements would be improper if the supervisor specifically directed them toward her subordinate employees, or to a subset of friends that includes subordinate employees. For example, a supervisor should not send to a subordinate employee a Facebook message or “tweet” that shows her support for a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race.

Although the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from soliciting or receiving political contributions at any time, employees are not responsible for the statements of third parties, even when they appear on their social media page. Thus, if an individual posts a link to the political contribution page of a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race, or otherwise solicits political contributions, the employee need not take any action. The same advice applies to any “tweets” directed at the employee. However, the employee should not “like,” “share,” or “retweet” the solicitation, or respond in any way that would tend to encourage other readers to contribute.

Yes, but not while on duty or in the workplace.

Yes. For example, a federal employee may continue to “friend,” “like,” or “follow” the official Facebook, Twitter, or other social media page of the President or Member of Congress, even after the President or Member begins his reelection campaign.

No. Any social media account created in a federal employee’s official capacity should be limited to official business matters and remain politically neutral. Any political activity must be confined to the employee’s personal Facebook or Twitter account, subject to the limitations described in other related questions.

No. A federal agency’s Facebook or Twitter account, like its official website, should be limited to official business matters and remain politically neutral. Thus, an agency’s social media account should not “friend,” “like,” “follow,” “tweet,” or “retweet” about a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race or link to the social media accounts of such entities.

No. Any information or links to information about a federal agency official’s attendance or speech at a political event for a candidate in a partisan race should not be posted on the agency’s Facebook or Twitter account.

Yes, federal employees may display a political party or campaign logo or candidate photograph as their cover or header photo on their personal Facebook or Twitter accounts. This display, usually featured at the top of one’s social media profile, without more, is not improper political activity.

Yes, but subject to the following limitations. Because a profile picture accompanies most actions on social media, a federal employee would not be permitted, while on duty or in the workplace, to post, “share,” “tweet,” or “retweet” any items on Facebook or Twitter, because each such action would show their support for a partisan group or candidate in a partisan race, even if the content of the action is not about those entities.

Yes. An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS), is subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act. However, certain PAS's are not subject to the Act's prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle. To be exempt from this prohibition, a PAS must meet all of the following criteria:

1. the duties and responsibilities of his position must continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post;
2. his position must be located within the United States; and
3. he must determine policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of federal laws.

If a PAS meets all these criteria, he is not prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle, provided the costs associated with the political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. However, the PAS remains subject to all the other prohibitions of the Hatch Act, and thus, may not: use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election; knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person; be a candidate for public office in a partisan election; or knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the employee's employing office.

No.

Assuming a Presidential appointee with Senate confirmation (PAS) meets the criteria outlined in the answer to the previous question, he—but only he—may engage in political activity while on duty, in a  government room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle, so long as, the costs associated with the political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. The appointee’s staff, however, is not subject to this exemption. Therefore, the appointee’s staff members are still prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle.

No. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees, including PAS’s, from soliciting or accepting uncompensated volunteer services from an individual who is a subordinate. 5 C.F.R. §§ 734.302(b)(3), 734.303(d). Thus, the Act prohibits a supervisor from soliciting a subordinate employee to write a policy speech for the supervisor to give at a partisan political event. In addition, the Act prohibits a supervisor from accepting such a speech from a subordinate. The fact that the policy speech contains no partisan political advocacy is irrelevant.

No. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees, including PAS’s, from soliciting or accepting uncompensated volunteer services for any political purpose from an individual who is a subordinate. 5 C.F.R. §§ 734.302(b)(3), 734.303(d). Thus, the Act prohibits a supervisor from asking subordinate employees to contact a political party to inquire about opportunities for the PAS to assist the party.

No. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees, including PAS’s, from soliciting or accepting uncompensated volunteer services for any political purpose from an individual who is a subordinate. 5 C.F.R. §§ 734.302(b)(3), 734.303(d). Thus, the Act prohibits a supervisor from asking subordinate employees to attend a political party meeting or any other partisan political event.

No. Hatch Act regulation states that an employee may not use his or her official title while participating in political activity. 5 C.F.R. § 734.302(b)(1). Accordingly, a Cabinet secretary may not use the official title “Secretary” when engaging in political activity, such as speaking at a political campaign event. However, a Cabinet secretary may use a general form of address, such as “The Honorable,” when engaging in political activity, as such address does not identify his or her position. 5 C.F.R. § 734.302, Example 1.

Yes, on questions of coercion or use of official authority (but not on the candidacy prohibition).

The Merit Systems Protection Board has held that the test of whether an employee is covered by the Hatch Act is whether, as a normal and foreseeable incident of his principal employment, the employee performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal funds. Special Counsel v. Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57, 61 (1990). If an employee meets this standard, the source of the employee’s salary is irrelevant. See Special Counsel v. Williams, 56 M.S.P.R. 277, 283-84 (1993), aff’d, Williams v. M.S.P.B., 55 F.3d 917 (4th Cir. 1995).

Not necessarily. An officer or employee of a state, D.C., or local agency is subject to the Hatch Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of his principal position or job, he performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal funds. Coverage is not dependent on whether the employee actually administers the funds or has policy duties with respect to them. However, an employee may have other duties in connection with federally funded programs or activities, and thus may be covered by the Hatch Act, even though he does not apply for or administer federal loans or grants or have any
authority or discretion over the federal funding.

No, not necessarily. If an agency receives federal grants or loans, only those employees of the agency who, as a normal and foreseeable incident of their employment, perform duties in connection with activities financed in whole or in part by the federal grants or loans are subject to the Act.

The Hatch Act exempts from coverage individuals who are principally employed by educational or research institutions, establishments, agencies or systems that are supported in whole or in part by a state or political subdivision thereof, or the D.C. All employees of these entities fall within the exemption (e.g., teacher, administrator, custodian, etc.).

Maybe. The Hatch Act applies to employees of private, nonprofit organizations only if the statutes through which these organizations derive their federal funding contain a provision stating that the recipient organizations are deemed to be state, D.C. or local government agencies for purposes of the Hatch Act. To date, the statutes authorizing Head Start and Community Service Block Grant (CSBG)
are the only statutes that contain such a provision. Accordingly, covered employees are those individuals at private nonprofit organizations who perform duties “in connection with” programs financed in whole or in part by Head Start or CSBG funds.

No. If you are covered by the Hatch Act, taking a sabbatical or leave of absence will not allow you to be a candidate in a partisan election. State, local employees, and D.C. employees subject to the Hatch Act continue to be covered while on annual leave, sick leave, administrative leave, furlough, or any other paid or unpaid leave.

The Hatch Act defines partisan as referring to a political party. 5 C.F.R. §151.101(h). Thus, under the Hatch Act, an election for public office is a partisan election if any candidate is running as a representative of, for instance, the Republican or Democratic Party. An employee whose salary is entirely federally funded may not be a candidate for public office in a partisan election. 5 U.S.C. §1502(a)(3).

No. An employee whose salary is entirely federally funded may not be a candidate for public office in a partisan election, i.e., an election in which any candidate represents, for example, the Republican or Democratic Party. A candidate who cross-files as both a Democrat and Republican is viewed as representing both parties. Therefore, an election in which candidates are permitted to cross-file is a partisan election under the Act.

Yes. If the special election is partisan and your salary is entirely federally funded, you would be prohibited from being a candidate in such an election.

Yes. The Hatch Act's prohibitions on state, D.C., and local employees are applicable regardless of jurisdiction, or local population.

Yes. The Hatch Act does not prohibit a covered employee from being appointed to a partisan political office. However, if the employee's salary is entirely federally funded, the employee would be prohibited from seeking election to that office.

No. While the Hatch Act prohibits a state, D.C., or local government employee whose salary is entirely federally funded from running for partisan public office, it does not prohibit the employee from holding partisan elective office. However, the Hatch Act would prohibit said employee while employed in a position that is entirely federally funded from seeking reelection or election to the partisan political office.

No, not if the elected office is the individual’s principal employment. The Hatch Act specifically exempts individuals who hold elective office from the prohibition against being a candidate for public office in a partisan election. 5 U.S.C. § 1502(c)(4). Please note, however, that this exemption applies only when the elective office is the position that would otherwise subject the employee to the restrictions of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act defines a nonpartisan election as "an election at which none of the candidates is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party any of whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected." 5 C.F.R. § 151.101(g); see also 5 U.S.C. § 1503. Examples of political parties that received votes in the last Presidential election are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green Parties. The Hatch Act does not prohibit covered employees from being candidates in nonpartisan elections.

No. While elected officials are exempt from the candidacy prohibition of the Hatch Act, they are still subject to the other two prohibitions – the prohibitions against using one’s official authority to affect the result of an election and directly or indirectly coercing a state, D.C. or local employee to make a political contribution. Because it is inherently coercive for a supervisor to ask a subordinate employee to contribute to a political cause, the Hatch Act would prohibit an elected official form asking subordinate employees to help or contribute to his reelection campaign.

No. As discussed above, it is inherently coercive for a supervisor to ask a subordinate employee to contribute to a political cause. Therefore, the Hatch Act would prohibit a supervisor from asking subordinates to volunteer for any partisan political campaign, political party, etc.

No. Inviting subordinate employees to a political fundraiser would violate two provisions of the Hatch Act. First, inviting subordinate state or local employees to a political fundraiser would violate the Act’s prohibition against directly or indirectly coercing, attempting to coerce, or advising other employees to make a political contribution, even if the supervisory employee
does not expressly ask the individuals to contribute money. Second, inviting subordinate employees to any political event would violate the Act’s prohibition against using one’s official influence or authority to affect the result of an election. Such conduct is inherently coercive, and violates the Act even if the supervisory employee does not threaten to penalize subordinates who do not attend or promise to reward those who do attend.