U.S. Code
»
Title 5
» Part PART II— CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES › Chapter CHAPTER 15— POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES
5 U.S.C. § 1502
Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions
(a) A State or local officer or employee may not—(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office;(2) directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise a State or local officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes; or(3) if the salary of the employee is paid completely, directly or indirectly, by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency, be a candidate for elective office.(b) A State or local officer or employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinions on political subjects and candidates.(c) Subsection (a)(3) of this section does not apply to—(1) the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of a State or an individual authorized by law to act as Governor;(2) the mayor of a city;(3) a duly elected head of an executive department of a State, municipality, or the District of Columbia who is not classified under a State, municipal, or the District of Columbia merit or civil-service system; or(4) an individual holding elective office.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 404; Pub. L. 93–443, title IV, § 401(a), Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1290; Pub. L. 112–230, §§ 2, 3(c), Dec. 28, 2012, 126 Stat. 1616.)In subsection (a), the term “State or local officer or employee”, defined in section 1501, is substituted for the first 41 words of former section 118k(a). The words “any part of his salary or compensation” are omitted as included in “anything of value”.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Editorial NotesAmendments2012—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 112–230, § 2, amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (3) read as follows: “be a candidate for elective office.”
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 112–230, § 3(c), which directed the substitution of “, municipality, or the District of Columbia’ ” for “ ‘or municipality” and “, municipal, or the District of Columbia’ ” for “ ‘or municipal”, was executed by substituting “, municipality, or the District of Columbia” for “or municipality” and “, municipal, or the District of Columbia” for “or municipal”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
1974—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 93–443 substituted “be a candidate for elective office” for “take an active part in political management or in political campaigns”.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2012 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 112–230 effective 30 days after Dec. 28, 2012, see section 5(a) of Pub. L. 112–230, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
Effective Date of 1974 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 93–443 effective Jan. 1, 1975, see section 410(a) of Pub. L. 93–443, set out as a note under section 30101 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
Notes of Decisions
Molina-Crespo v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Molina challenges the district court's conclusion that the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that Molina's violation of 5 U.S.C. § 1502 (a)(3), the provision of the Hatch Act that regulates the political activity of state employees who administer federal funds,…”
Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 165 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff, Robert Alexander, appeals the district court’s decision affirming the order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that he be removed from his employment with the State of Michigan for violation of the Hatch Political Activity Act (Hatch Act), 5 U.S.C. § 1502…”
Fishkin v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 309 F. Supp. 40 (N.D. Cal. 1969).
· cites it 4× “*42 Plaintiffs pray for declaratory relief to the effect that 5 U.S.C. §§ 1502 (a) (3) 1 and 1506 2 (the Hatch Act) are unconstitutional, and for an injunction enjoining defendants (members of the Commission, Jornlin (Director of the Social Service Department of Contra Costa…”
Stanley J. Brown v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 553 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1977).
· cites it 3× “On charges brought under the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1502 (a)(3), which at the pertinent time prohibited political activity by state and local government employees, whose principal employment was in connection with activity financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the…”
Chapa v. Whittle, 536 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “III, § 19 and 5 U.S.C.A. § 1502 (a). Specifically, petitioner alleged that at the time Gonzales made application to run for the Texas Legislature, he was acting as the appointed Director of the Social Culture Intervention Program for the Nueces County Mental Health and Mental…”
City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n, 739 N.E.2d 719 (NY 2000).
“In Blackburne, a State employee was removed for violating a provision of the Federal Hatch Act ( 5 USC § 1502 [a] [3]) barring employees of State agencies receiving Federal funds from running for elective office.”
Bauers v. Cornett, 865 F.2d 1517 (8th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 4× “The district court denied her requests for declaratory and injunctive relief because her solicitations violated the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1502 (a)(2), “especially since the Committee contemplated that he [the lobbyist] would use some of the funds for political contributions * *…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 1502(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.