An Inquiry Into the Chilling Effects of Stringent Little Hatch Act Prohibitions

DOI10.1177/0734371X0102100401
Published date01 December 2001
Date01 December 2001
Subject MatterArticles
REVIEWOFPUBLICPERSONNELADMINISTRATION / Winter 2001
Snead/LITTLEHATCHACT PROHIBITIONS
An Inquiry Into the Chilling Effects
of Stringent Little Hatch
Act Prohibitions
JOHN DAVID SNEAD
Bluefield State College
This study examined ways that differences in state political-activity laws affect
the political attitudes and reported behavior of state-level public administrators.
It included officials employed in Pennsylvania, which has restrictive laws, and
New Jersey, which has generally permissive statutes. Compared with NewJersey’s
employees, Pennsylvania’s were less knowledgeable about their state laws, less
politically active, and less satisfied with their activity. However, the Pennsylva-
nia workers were no less inclined to engage in permissible activities. These find-
ings cast doubt upon the “chilling effects”argument that strict laws prompt gov-
ernment employees to develop apolitical tendencies. Nonetheless, they do raise
concerns about the stifling effects of the statutes.
Since its founding, the field of public administration has been haunted by
the politics-administration dichotomy.Rosenbloom (1993) maintained it
was the “cornerstone of public administrative orthodoxy”(p. 503). To many,
one of the more salient modern-day manifestations of the dichotomy is the
Hatch Political Activities Actof 1939 (as amended), commonly referred to as
the Hatch Act. It restricts the partisan political activities1of most federal
employees and those state and local government employees whose agencies
are funded, at least in part, by the federal government. In addition to the fed-
eral legislation, state-level statutory prohibitions, commonly referred to as
“little” Hatch Acts, and myriad other administrative rules serve to restrict, to
varying degrees, the political activities2of state and local government workers
in virtually all states.
A primary criticism of Hatch Acts, particularly the more restrictive laws,
is that they spawn “chilling effects.” According to the chilling effects argu-
259
ARTICLES
Author’sNote: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of ROPPA for their helpful
comments and suggestions on this article. I also would like to extend a special thanks to
Karen Hult,who provided me with invaluable guidance on the research project from which
this article was drawn.
Review of Public Personnel Administration,Vol. 21, No. 4 Winter 2001 259-283
© 2001 Sage Publications
at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ment, workers operating in more restrictive statutory climates shy away
from many political activities, including permissible ones, thus developing
an aversion to politics. This study addresses that concern by comparing the
attitudinal and behavioral effects of a more restrictive state statutory cli-
mate with those of a less restrictive one. The article begins by discussing the
recent trend of Hatch Act liberalization. Itthen presents many of the popu-
lar arguments for and against strict political activity prohibitions. Particular
attention is directed to chilling effects. An examination of prior research
related to the effects of Hatch Act and little Hatch Act prohibitions follows.
The article then enumerates this study’s research propositions, details its
research design, and presents the proposition test results. It concludes with
a discussion of the findings and recommendations for further research.
RECENT HATCH ACT LIBERALIZATION
In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation revis-
ing the federal Hatch Act by tightening on-the-job restrictions and relaxing
off-duty prohibitions for most federal and postal employees.3This relax-
ation of the Hatch Act continued a trend, initiated by several states during
the years following passage of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, of
allowing state and local government employees covered under the Hatch
Act to participate in partisan campaigns. Boyle (1991) noted that between
1974 and 1983, 13 states eased restrictions on the political activities of state
and local government employees.4Still, it should be noted states are essen-
tially free to regulate government employees’ partisan activities in any way
deemed appropriate, and some have restrictions far more stringent than
those of the federal Hatch Act (as amended).
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
HATCH ACT PROHIBITIONS
Not surprisingly, the Hatch Act and states’ little Hatch Acts continue to
elicit considerable debate in academic circles and among elected officials,
political appointees, and career civil servants. Supporters of tight restric-
tions on government workers’ partisan activities have articulated various
arguments in support of their position.5Webster and Kasle (1988) main-
tained that Hatch Acts check the development of powerful political
machines, protect merit systems by shielding workers from the coercive
tendencies of other employees, and ensure fairness and efficiency in the
260 REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION / Winter2001
at SAGE Publications on December 8, 2012rop.sagepub.comDownloaded from

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT