Published: November 21, 2008 12:05 am         

Candidates impacted by Hatch Act say federal law needs revision

Law affected campaigns of Horrall, Nichols

TERRE HAUTE — A pair of former Terre Haute political candidates who were affected by the Hatch Act last year say the federal law needs another look.

Jim Horrall, who finished second to former Mayor Kevin Burke in the 2007 Democratic Party mayoral primary, and Erin Nichols, who dropped out of the 2007 Democratic Party primary race for City Clerk, both say the Hatch Act needs revision.

The Hatch Act is a 1939 federal law that limits the political activity of people whose jobs are funded at least in part by federal dollars. Burke has filed a lawsuit against Mayor Duke Bennett charging Bennett violated the Hatch Act when he ran for mayor last year. Bennett was formerly employed by Hamilton Center, a not-for-profit mental health organization that operates a federally funded Head Start program.

“I don’t think [the Hatch Act] has evolved with time as it should have,” Horrall said.

Horrall worked for the Indiana Department of Child Services when he ran in the Democratic primary against Burke and two other Democrats last year.

The Department of Child Services receives federal funding and Horrall’s superiors told him he could not run for office and keep his job, he said.

“That was the fastest I’ve ever seen government work,” Horrall said with a laugh. He announced his candidacy on a Thursday and the following Monday morning he was told he had to quit his job or withdraw his candidacy, he said. “And that [instruction] came from Indianapolis,” Horrall added. “Not local.”

Horrall quit his job to run in the primary. He was later rehired by the Department of Child Services, he said.

Nichols, who works as the Americans with Disabilities Act specialist for the City of Terre Haute Transit Utility, agrees the Hatch Act needs to be changed.

“I honestly think that they need to take a look at the Hatch Act and they need to redo it,” Nichols said. “I honestly believe, in my heart, unless you actually touch [federal] money or have some say in how that money is spent, [the Hatch Act] really shouldn’t have anything to do with you.”

Both Horrall and Nichols say their jobs gave them no opportunities to spend federal dollars and both say their only connection to federal or other tax money is through their paychecks.

“I understand the premise” of the Hatch Act, Horrall said, but the law was designed to prevent people from using government money to sway elections. His job gave him no such ability, he said.

“I’m not in a position to either give a job or threaten a job. I’m not in a position to do anything like that,” Nichols said. “The way the Hatch Act is written, it’s just too broadly scoped. It disqualifies a lot of people, a lot of people.”

Nichols was informed she might be subject to the Hatch Act by a telephone call to her home less than a week after she filed as a candidate for office, she said. “Someone made sure I knew it,” she said. “Someone didn’t want me running.”

After receiving the phone call, Nichols quickly verified that she was subject to the Hatch Act by calling the Office of Special Council in Washington. The OSC is the federal agency charged with prosecuting Hatch Act cases. OSC officials told her, in less than 15 minutes, she was covered by the act, she said. They also told her if she did not either drop out of her race or quit her job, the Transit Utility would stop receiving federal money. She withdrew from the clerk’s race immediately, she said. “I didn’t want to do anything that would jeopardize transit,” Nichols said.

While the Hatch Act prevents challengers for public office from spending federal funds, current officeholders seeking re-election face no such restrictions. Under the Hatch Act, incumbent officeholders are exempt from the act’s provision prohibiting involvement in partisan politics.

“Kind of the pot and the kettle, isn’t it?” Nichols said. “If the Hatch Act is taken the way the Hatch Act is written, no mayor, no governor, no federal employee anywhere should be able to run for anything. I think it’s a very convenient act. It’s very convenient for people who don’t want [other] people running.”

Burke contends that Bennett fell under the Hatch Act because his job at the Hamilton Center put him in contact with the Head Start program. Bennett contends his role at Hamilton Center was not tied closely enough to the agency’s Head Start program to bring him under the Hatch Act.

Erica Hamrick, deputy chief of the Hatch Act unit in the OSC, said her agency sometimes has to consider the specific job someone is doing even when they work for a not-for-profit operating a Head Start program.

“A private nonprofit that receives Head Start funding doesn’t necessarily mean all of its employees are covered,” Hamrick said. “We have to look at the employee’s job duties, what his responsibilities are and then look at the Head Start funding, what programs are funded by the Head Start funding, how the funding is being used and analyze whether or not the employee has duties in connection with that Head Start-funded program.”

Vigo County Superior Court Judge David Bolk ruled last December the Hatch Act applied to Bennett and two of three Indiana appeals court judges recently agreed and called for a special election to fill the mayor’s seat. Bennett plans to appeal that decision to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Arthur Foulkes can be reached at (812) 231-4232 or arthur.foulkes@tribstar.com.