The thing I've always been told about the Hatch Act--I am a civilian federal employee--is that there is no problem volunteering for campaigns, say, but I cannot accept any sort of payment for partisan political activity. Running for office? Dunno.

Carla-

Yes, it is bassackwards (technical legal term). Here is the "logic" (please note my own grumbling). The theory is that a federal employee should not be involved in the administration of state finances. Think of it as an example of micro-federalism, where the feds REALLY, AND I REALLY MEAN IT, don't want any of their employees tangled in official business of the state.

Makes no practical sense, I know, and I agree. What is even stranger is that Mr. Day (that seems weird coming from me) can still be on the Salem-Keizer school board.

You government hard at work

P.S. I am not related to Hanten Day, Vance Day, Doris Day or Susan Dey (although Susan DAy is my mom).....

Linda Modrell, who had to change to a 100% state-funded job in order to run for Benton County Commissioner, would be your expert here.

If he won and kept his job, he would then have influence as a legislator over the budget at his job. It would make him like his own grandpa where funding is concerned: his administrator has influence over his salary, but he has influence over funding as a legislator.

I have some peripheral experience with this, I suppose.

In 2004, I worked for Jim Feldkamp's Congressional campaign. Prior to his run, Jim had to resign from the FBI for the very same reasons stated in this post. The reasoning is that he couldn't work for one branch of the federal government, the executive, and run for a position in another branch, the executive.

I don't know if this helps, but it's another anecdote to add to the post.

I wonder if he could take an unpaid leave of absence for the duration of the campaign?

Anta has a great idea!

Some questions: 1) Did the caucus recruit Day or did he decide to run on his own? If the first, did they research his job to see if there was such a potential problem? Did Day mention to a supervisor that he was filing for state rep?

2)Why are we just talking about this now? If it was a problem when he filed, someone should have mentioned it sooner? Or is this a case of a scared incumbent (or party) who hadn't taken the Day campaign seriously before this point--but now it looks like he has a chance?

3) Has this question ever been clarified before? Don't recall the Public Comm. on the Legislature discussing it when their topic was "how can we get a more diverse group of good people to run to become legislators".

4) Who, if anyone, has experitise in an issue like this?

Schwarzenegger coming to Convention Center this Friday for big bucks fundraising luncheon for Gordon Smith/OR Gop/NRSC. $25,000 for photo op! Wow! Oregon Ballroom.

Oh how I would love to see some activists there, protesting Smith's use of rape victims in his classy campaign ads.

In fact, I would love to see Barbara Roberts hold a presser in front of the Convention Center as guests are arriving...

The Rs have actually thrown this same charge at a number of progressive candidates running for different positions in this state. They succeeded in knocking two or three potential county commission candidates out in different parts of the state.

Kari: Thanks for pointing out the unnecessarythe swipe at Bush on this issue. The Hatch Act was not created during, nor substantially changed during either Bush administration that I can recall. I (mostly) don't mind legitimate swipes at Bush when progressives disagree philosophically. However, I think Carla owes an apology for a headline which is disingenuous unless she has additional information of specific actions by Bush administration officials in Day's situation.

Well, unfortunately for Mr. Day, the DHS policy quite clearly says you cannot RUN for PARTISAN political office while employed by DHS.

That should not impede candidates for county commissioner, unless they work somewhere else (like the County).

But Carla, this is Mr. Day's responsibility. This isn't "hidden in fine print" in DHS policy. When I considered running for office, I consulted the employee handbook and found this policy in the political activity section.

Reasonable, or not, it's right there for anyone to see. Mr. Day risks losing his job -- obviously the state can't prevent him from running, but his boss certianly could fire him, unless he negotiates leave without pay (if he lost, I'm sure he'd like his job back, but if he won, he'd have to find other work).

Several candidates for Crook County offices were forced to drop off the primary ballots due to the Hatch Act. One was involved with the County's environmental health programs (septic and restaurant sanitation). I'm not aware of a single dollar of Federal money in those arena's. The County for sure does get Federal money. This fellow was told he could either run for office, or work for the County, but not both at the same time.

Was he forced out under false use of the Hatch Act?

I don't know.

Carla, Wikipedia? are you that lazy? nice research skills.

Carla, would you prefer that the Bush Administration not enforce the Act and allow Day to run?

Day can resign or transfer to a state job that is not federally funded. Certainly, someone should have checked into this when he first considered running.

Hatch may not be such great policy, but it's on the books.

I always thought, and have been advised by a lawyer, that one can run for the Legislature but cannot serve, while working for a state agency. In other words, Mr. Day should be able to run, but if he won, would have to resign his DHS job to serve. I understand there's an exclusion for higher ed and school district faculty, but not administrators.

Well, you can bet the Bush League is NOT telling Republican government employees to step off the ballot. Unequal enforcement is a problem.

If Day drops out, does the Democratic Party get to put a replacement candidate on the ballot?

Seems to me, Day would and should definitely need to quit his day job if elected. Needing to quit while just running for the office seems a little harsh to me. Hopefully, if that would be required, they'd let him take the leave of absence. It's less than two months till the election, and the ballot may well have been printed already for all I know.

The question of the day is, how come we're finding all this out NOW, instead of a year ago when Day was thinking about running?

This issue is generating lots of discussion here Marion County where Hanten is running.

Hanten is challenging the state and federal government's interpretation of the Hatch Act. Hanten has been dealing with the matter since May. The laws and regs governing this are very complex. The state policies are very broadly written and bring many state employees under the umbrella of the Hatch Act who may not necessarily belong under it.

Hanten is taking a very principled stand on this matter and is willing to lose his job or face the consequences of federal sanctions. He has no intention of abandoning his race for HD 19. Hanten faced oppression during the cultural revolution and the student democracy movement in China. He believes strongly in standing up for his rights.

He gave a very good speech at DemoForum at noon in Salem today discussing the matter. It was taped for later broadcast on cable access TV. The Statesman Journal and Salem Monthly were covering the forum and will probably report on the matter in the near future. Hanten was also interviewed by KATU on his Hatch Act challenge. The interview aired Monday on the evening news.

I suggest that Blue Oregon interview Hanten directly on this matter. He is very passionate and articulate on the subject. The Hatch Act was written long ago. Its relevance to modern government -- particularly state government -- is questionable. A challenge of the law and its assumptions is long overdue. Perhaps Hanten's challenge will lead to some changes.

Hi - I am Hanten's volunteer campaign manager and PLEASE someone from this web site should talk directly with HD about what is happening. I can clear up a few questions from posts: - He was recruited to run by folks in the local party as no one else was willing to run. - He always understood that when he wins, he will have to resign from state employment. - The Hatch Act does not allow someone to take unpaid leave until the election. It's withdraw or quit. - His supervisors were aware of his candidacy all along so there was never any attempt on his part to hide or evade scrutiny.
- This all came up AFTER the primary where his numbers were better than his opponent. Draw your own conclusions. Again, someone from the site, email me at [email protected] and I'll get you the Hanten's cell number. He would be happy to speak with you or anyone about this or his campaign.

"Well, unfortunately for Mr. Day, the DHS policy quite clearly says you cannot RUN for PARTISAN political office while employed by DHS."

And no one in the caucus was aware of that? No one asked a candidate before he filed whether he had checked with his supervisors and his employee handbook? And the employee handbook is why this is a problem now and not before the primary?

Were the people in the caucus office/FP lazy, ignorant of the statement in the employee handbook, or only concerned with filling slots and raising money? Seems like that is a valid question. How many people are on the FP payroll and no one figured this out sooner? Or didn't Dist. 19 matter because the Democrat was going to lose anyway because "lousy R to D ratio" is more important than anything else?

LT: I know that you like to take every possible opportunity to bash Future PAC, but FP bears no fault on this one.

As Hanten's staffer said (look above), he was recruited by Marion County Democrats to run, not by Future PAC.

LT, aren't YOU a Marion County Democrat? Oh, then this must all be YOUR fault. Get a grip.

From the Day campaign press release, it sounds like he is going to fight this. Even if the ruling is made that the Hatch Act applies to his position, he is a serious candidate and willing to risk the loss of his job to represent House District 19. I have to respect that level of commitment.

Was this a dirty trick by the Kevin Cameron campaign? Check out KevinCameronWatch.

"The Bush Admin is the enforcement arm for this Act, as I understand it, hence the reference."

Carla. Let me get your logic correct. Hatch Act is a federal law, so "Bush Administration" is responsible for Day's demise. If DHS terminates day, will your headline be "Kulongoski Adminisration fires D House candidate?" And the next time the FBI nabs a big drug dealer in Oregon you'll write "Bush Administration stops drug trafficing in Oregon"

C'mon...just a little acknowledgement that you're headline was unnecessarily misleading. I know you can do it.

"The Bush Admin is the enforcement arm for this Act, as I understand it, hence the reference."

Carla. Let me get your logic correct. Hatch Act is a federal law, so "Bush Administration" is responsible for Day's demise. If DHS terminates day, will your headline be "Kulongoski Adminisration fires D House candidate?" And the next time the FBI nabs a big drug dealer in Oregon you'll write "Bush Administration stops drug trafficing in Oregon"

C'mon...just a little acknowledgement that you're headline was unnecessarily misleading. I know you can do it.

"The Bush Admin is the enforcement arm for this Act, as I understand it, hence the reference."

Carla, Carla, Carla. Let me see if I understand your logic correctly. All federal laws are enforced by the "Bush Admin," so your headline is accurate. Is that your view?

So, if Day gets a termination letter from DHS, a state agency, then surely you'd agree with the headline "Kulongoski Admin fires House D Candidate," correct?

And the next time the Portland office of the FBI, a federal agency, takes down a large drug trafficing ring, you're likely to headline your missive "Bush Admin stops drug ring in Oregon." To be intellectually consistent, you will agree with those hypotheticals, won't you?

C'mon. You're a great writer. I don't always agree with your point of view, but I enjoy reading it. Just a little acknowledgement that your headline was unnecessarily misleading. I know you can do it.

Sorry for the multiple posts. Something screwy at my end, no doubt. I tried to post a couple of times and my computer shut down. Looks like they made it on anyway. Blue Oregon administrator, please feel free to delete the first two attempts.

"Did you mean that to come across as condescending and patronizing as it does...?"

...Only to the same degree that your headline was meant to come across as misleading and insulting to the intelligence of your readers as it does...

However, I will acknowledge that you found my words condescending and patronizing. Thus, I apologize as my intent was to compliment your writing, the intellectual rigor you demonstrate in your posts and to wrap it all in a lighthearted challenge for you to admit a bit of overzealous anti-Bush hyperbole on your part. I hope you'll forgive me.

Hanten's challenge of the actions pending against him boil down to a couple of points:

1. Is the Hatch Act totally out of sinc with modern realties of government? Have the federal bureaucrats and politicians who administer this law enforced it a way that takes it far away from its original purpose -- stopping plitical patronage in the federal government and federally funded state programs.

2. Are the State of Oregon and one its departments using too broad of a brush in determing who is subject to the Hatch Act? For example, should (also does?) the Hatch Act apply to EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE in a Department comprised of thousands of people. This is putting a very large muzzle on political expression.

Darrell: The title regarding the Bush Administration's role in trying to stop Hanten Day's candidacy is not misleading. The letter issued to Hanten Day by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in Washington D.C.

In case you don't recall, the OSC is led by partisan hack and Bush political appointee Scott Bloch. See his profile, and the recent FBI raid of his office regarding the misuse of office for partisan purposes. It is thought that the FBI may be looking into violations in the Hatch Act unit (including Bloch's potential violations).

So the assertion that it is the "Bush Administration" submarining Hanten Day is not at all inaccurate.

"As Hanten's staffer said (look above), he was recruited by Marion County Democrats to run, not by Future PAC."

Gee, so the caucus has no responsibility to any candidate not recruited by the caucus---is that your premise? Are we all Democrats or is the party really divided into fiefdoms?

I still say this smells to be coming out in September. If there really was an iron clad policy, why was Day allowed to file and allowed to accept the nomination?

Whatever happens, there should be a legal opinion/legislative action to clarify this for future candidates.

Here's a hypothetical to consider:

H. Day leaves his job, wins election, but no one in the caucus ever lifted a finger to help him (or maybe one member of the caucus helps him and everyone else ignores him). Does he owe the caucus anything? Does he have the right to vote for anyone he chooses to vote for as Speaker (for instance, a Democrat other than Dave Hunt)? Is he required to vote the way the caucus tells him to vote on anything?

Folks, that is not entirely hypothetical. 12 years ago, the Democratic nominee won in Dist. 31 (now 20) after a contested primary. One candidate had filed for the office when the Majority Leader recruited someone else. That first candidate won the primary anyway. When he won he let the caucus know that he owed the caucus a vote to organize but after that he would vote on his own. He was an excellent state rep. who never forgot that his constituents had elected him.

Folks, no caucus ever elects legislators--the voters do. I maintain one reason for Measure 65 getting on the ballot is the perception that some legislators have forgotten that it is voters, not any caucus, who elect them.

I was at the Marion County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC) meeting on Monday when Hanten Day explained his plight to precinct committee people. The state attorney general's office won't even issue an opinion on the validity of the DHS handbook policy. This isn't a slam dunk by any means. It's a lot more complicated than some posters have made it seem.

LT said: "Gee, so the caucus has no responsibility to any candidate not recruited by the caucus---is that your premise? Are we all Democrats or is the party really divided into fiefdoms?"

Nice try, LT, but YOU were the one trying to divide and assign blame to some parts of the party. Although Hanten Day was a self-starting candidate, he has received the same level of assistance, advice, and support available to all House Democratic candidates -- from Future PAC staff directly and from the mentoring legislators assigned to him.

LT said: "Is he required to vote the way the caucus tells him to vote on anything?"

Democrats don't force other Democrats to vote for things they don't believe in. That's the Republican Party. Maybe you should join that party, LT, since your whining would fit in better there.

"Although Hanten Day was a self-starting candidate, he has received the same level of assistance, advice, and support available to all House Democratic candidates -- from Future PAC staff directly and from the mentoring legislators assigned to him."

Bugs, do you work for FP? Or are you just assuming this is true?

Day has considerable community support and did really well at a multi-candidate St. Rep. forum last night sponsored by a variety of community groups (City Club, AAUW, LMV, etc) last night.

And I will grant you that FP is not bombarding us with emails for their one chosen candidate this year as they did with Brading in 2006.

Whether candidates like Jason Brown, Dan Thackaberry, Hanten Day and others who don't live in heavily Democratic districts are getting more support this year than FP has given historically, I have no way of knowing.

LT: If you have no way of knowing, you might want to stop making allegations.

If you're in a hole, stop digging. :)

Excellent Peter Wong story:

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809200318

<h2>I also appreciated Peter Wong's article. The statements from the Oregon Department of Justice hinted that they may take a look at the legal issues surrounding the DHS policies that exclude all of their 10,000 employees from seeking political office.</h2>