260 PART ThRee • InsTITuTIons oF AmeRIcAn GoveRnmenT
federal employees were covered by the merit system initially. Later laws, amendments,
and executive orders, however, increased the coverage to more than 90 percent of federal
employees. The effects of these reforms were felt at all levels of government.
The Supreme Court strengthened the civil service system in 1976 and in 1980.^1 In
those two cases, the Court used the First Amendment to forbid government officials from
discharging or threatening to discharge public employees solely for not being supporters
of the political party in power unless party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the
position. Additional enhancements to the civil service system were added in 1990.^2 The
Court’s ruling in that year effectively prevented the use of partisan political considerations
as the basis for hiring, promoting, or transferring most public employees. An exception
was permitted, however, for senior policymaking positions, which usually go to officials
who will support the programs of the elected leaders.The civil service Reform Act of 1978. In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act abol-
ished the Civil Service Commission and created two new federal agencies to perform its
duties. To administer the civil service laws, rules, and regulations, the act created the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The OPM is empowered to recruit, interview, and
test potential government workers and determine who should be hired. The OPM makes
recommendations to the individual agencies as to which persons meet the standards (typi-
cally, the top three applicants for a position), and the agencies then decide whom to hire.
To oversee promotions, employees’ rights, and other employment matters, the act created
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB evaluates charges of wrongdoing,
hears employee appeals of agency decisions, and can order corrective action against agen-
cies and employees.Federal employees and Political campaigns. In 1933, when President Franklin D.
Roosevelt set up his New Deal, an army of civil servants was hired to staff the many new
agencies that were created. Because the individuals who worked in these agencies owed
their jobs to the Democratic Party, it seemed natural for them to campaign for Democratic
candidates. The Democrats who controlled Congress in the mid-1930s did not object. But
in 1938, a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans took control of Congress
and forced through the Hatch Act—or Political Activities Act—of 1939. The act prohibited
federal employees from actively participating in the political management of campaigns.
It also forbade the use of federal authority to influence nominations and elections, and
it outlawed the use of bureaucratic rank to pressure federal employees to make political
contributions.
The Hatch Act created a controversy that lasted for decades. Many contended that
the act deprived federal employees of their First Amendment freedoms of speech and
association. In 1972, a federal district court declared the act unconstitutional. The United
States Supreme Court, however, reaffirmed the challenged portion of the act in 1973,
stating that the government’s interest in preserving a nonpartisan civil service was so great
that the prohibitions should remain.^3 Twenty years later, Congress addressed the criticisms
of the Hatch Act by passing the Federal Employees Political Activities Act of 1993. This act,
which amended the Hatch Act, lessened the harshness of the 1939 act in several ways.
Among other things, the 1993 act allowed federal employees to run for office in non-- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980).
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).
- United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548
(1973).
Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.