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 New Jersey’s employees, Pennsylvania’s were less knowledgeable about their state laws, less politically active, and less satisfied with their activity. However, the Pennsylvania workers were no less inclined to engage in permissible activities. These findings cast doubt upon the “chilling effects” argument that strict laws prompt government employees to develop apolitical tendencies. Nonetheless, they do raise concerns about the stifling effects of the statutes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blaylock, K. T. (1987). Statement delivered before the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service on May 21, 1987, during hearings held on the Federal and Postal Employees’ Political Activities Acts of 1987. Congressional Digest, 67, pp. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30.
2.
Boyle, L. L. (1991). Reforming civil service reform: Should the federal government continue to regulate state and local government employees?Journal of Law and Politics, 7(2), 243-288.
3.
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).
4.
Civil Service Act for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, § 905.2 (added June 26, 1989, P.L. 47, No. 10).
5.
Clay, W. (1987). Speech from the floor of the United States House of Representatives on November 17, 1987, during consideration of H. R. 3400, the Federal Employees’ Political Activities Act of 1987. Congressional Digest, 67, pp. 10, 12.
6.
Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel (1967). A commission report—Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7.
Crittenden, E. L. (1984). Restrictions on political activities of government employees. WestVirginia Law Review, 87, 165-188.
8.
Dougherty, F. M. (1987). Annotation, validity, construction, and effect of state statutes restricting political activities of public officers or employees. 51 A.L.R. 4th 702, 243-288.
9.
Elazar, D. L. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Ex Parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882).
12.
Federal Election Campaign Act, Pub. L. No. 93-443, Title IV, 401, 88 Stat. 1290 [codified at 5 U.S.C. 1502 (a) (3) (1988)].
13.
Furlong, S. R. (1998). Political influence on the bureaucracy: The bureaucracy speaks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 39-64.
14.
Halter, G. M. (1972). The effects of the Hatch Act on the political participation of federal employees. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16, 723-729.
15.
Hatch Act restrictions revised. (1993, November 13). CQ Almanac, 201-204.
16.
Hatch Political Activities Act, ch. 410, 53 Stat. 1147 (1939) [codified at 5 U.S.C. 7324(1988)].
17.
Kline, R., & Tobias, R. (1992). The Hatch Act: Broaden employee rights?The Bureaucrat, 20(4), 3-7.
18.
Mani, B. G. (1997). Gender and the federal senior executive service: Where is the glass ceiling?Public Personnel Management, 26, 545-558.
19.
Maskell, J., & Kasell, J. (1987). A compilation of state laws governing political activity of public employees (CRS Report 87-904 A). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service (November 13).
20.
Meiklejohn, A. (1965). Political freedom: The constitutional powers of the people. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Morgan, D. R., & Regens, J. L. (1976). Political participation among federal employees: The Hatch Act and political equality. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 10(4), 193-200.
22.
Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127 (1947).
23.
Pearson, W. M. (1978). The effect of state Hatch acts on state executives’ political activities. Southern Review of Public Administration, 2, 221-238.
24.
Pearson, W. M., & Castle, D. S. (1990). Political activity among state executives: The effect of Hatch act repeal. Public Personnel Management, 19, 399-409.
25.
Pearson, W. M., & Castle, D. S. (1991). Liberalizing restrictions on political activities of state employees: Perceptions of high-level state executives. American Review of Public Administration, 21(2), 91-104.
26.
Pearson, W. M., & Castle, D. S. (1993). Expanding the opportunity for partisan activity among government employees: Potential effects on federal executives’ political involvement. International Journal of Public Administration, 16, 511-525.
27.
Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission Information Pamphlet No. 10, p. 3 (Revised8-92).
28.
Perry, R. W., & Cayer, N. J. (1997). Factors affecting municipal satisfaction with health care plans. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(2), 5-19.
29.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley.
30.
Rinehart, J. C., & Bernick, E. L. (1975). Political attitudes and behavior patterns of federal civil servants. Public Administration Review, 35, 603-611.
31.
Rosenbloom, D. H. (1993). Editorial: Have an administrative Rx? Don’t forget the politics!Public Administration Review, 53, 503-507.
32.
Roth, W. V., Jr. (1993). Speech from the Senate floor debate of July 13, 1993, on S. 185, the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993. Congressional Digest, 72, pp. 207, 209, 211, 213, 215.
33.
Stahl, O. G. (1971). Public personnel administration (6th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
34.
State yellow book: Who’s who in the executive and legislative branches of the 50 state governments. (1999, Winter). New York: Monitor.
35.
Thurber, K. T., Jr. (1993). Revising the Hatch Act: A practitioner perspective. The PublicManager: The New Bureaucrat, 22, 43-47.
36.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).
37.
United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413U.S. 548 (1973).
38.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row.
39.
Webster, J. B., & Kasle, J. W. (1988). The Hatch Act: Should it be repealed or reformed?Government Union Review, 9(1), 25-53.
