State and Local Hatch Act Restrictions

Title 5 Chapter 15 is the state-and-local side of the Hatch Act. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 does not govern most federal employees; that is the separate federal Hatch Act framework in Chapter 73. Instead, Chapter 15 applies to certain state and local officers and employees whose principal employment is connected to activities financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. It restricts use of official authority to influence elections, bans political coercion of subordinates, and in some cases bars candidacy for partisan elective office. For the separate federal-employee political-activity framework, see the Hatch Act (federal).

This chapter matters because it is one of the clearest examples of Congress attaching political-neutrality conditions to federally supported state and local administration. But modern Chapter 15 is narrower than many people assume. Since the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012, the partisan-candidacy ban generally applies only if the employee's salary is paid completely by federal loans or grants. The anti-coercion and misuse-of-office rules remain broader than that, but the old idea that any federally connected state or local employee is automatically barred from partisan candidacy is no longer current law.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 5 U.S.C. § 1501 — Definitions: defines "State," "State or local agency," "Federal agency," and "State or local officer or employee," including key coverage limits and exclusions
• 5 U.S.C. § 1502 — Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions: bars misuse of official authority, political coercion, and certain partisan candidacies
• 5 U.S.C. § 1503 — Nonpartisan candidacies permitted: preserves candidacy in qualifying nonpartisan elections
• 5 U.S.C. § 1504 — Investigations; notice of hearing: sends suspected violations to OSC and then to MSPB for hearing
• 5 U.S.C. § 1505 — Hearings; adjudications; notice of determinations: gives the employee and agency a right to appear with counsel and requires MSPB findings
• 5 U.S.C. § 1506 — Orders; withholding loans or grants; limitations: requires grant withholding if a removal-warranting violator is not removed or is rehired within the statutory window
• 5 U.S.C. § 1507 — Subpenas and depositions: gives MSPB subpoena and evidence-gathering power
• 5 U.S.C. § 1508 — Judicial review: provides review in federal district court and then the court of appeals/Supreme Court path

What Connects These Sections

They attach political-neutrality rules to federal funding. Chapter 15 is built on the idea that federally financed state and local administration should not be used as a partisan machine.

They focus on institutional abuse more than private political belief. The statute does not outlaw voting, private opinions, or every form of civic participation. It targets misuse of office, coercion, and specific candidacies tied to federal funding.

They use a funding remedy rather than a purely personal federal disciplinary system. Because the employees are not federal civil servants, Congress used OSC, MSPB, and grant withholding rather than ordinary federal removal authority alone.

Major Components

Who is covered

The threshold question is always coverage. Under 5 U.S.C. § 1501(4), a covered "State or local officer or employee" is someone employed by a state or local agency whose principal employment is connected to an activity financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants.

That sounds broad, but the details matter. The statute excludes people who exercise no functions in connection with that financed activity, and it excludes certain employees of educational or research institutions supported by a state, the District of Columbia, or qualifying religious, philanthropic, or cultural organizations. So Chapter 15 does not cover every public employee whose agency receives some federal money somewhere in its budget.

The two core prohibitions: misuse of office and political coercion

The heart of the statute is 5 U.S.C. § 1502(a)(1)-(2). A covered employee may not use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomination, and may not directly or indirectly coerce another state or local officer or employee to contribute anything of value for political purposes.

These are the enduring centerpieces of Chapter 15. They are about abuse of position, pressure on subordinates, and politicization of public administration. Even after the 2012 modernization law narrowed the candidacy restriction, these two prohibitions remained in place and continue to do most of the statute's integrity work.

The narrowed partisan-candidacy ban

The most important modern caveat is § 1502(a)(3). A covered employee may not be a candidate for elective office if the salary of the employee is paid completely, directly or indirectly, by federal loans or grants.

That word completely is the big post-2012 change. Before the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012, the candidacy restriction reached more broadly. Today, many state and local employees whose work is connected to federally financed activities may still run for partisan office if their salaries are not fully funded by federal loans or grants. The statute therefore draws a sharper line between general grant-connected employment and fully federally funded salary positions.

Nonpartisan candidacies are allowed

5 U.S.C. § 1503 separately protects nonpartisan candidacies. If none of the candidates is nominated or elected as representing a party whose presidential electors received votes in the last presidential election, the statute does not bar the employee from running.

That matters because Chapter 15 is not meant to sterilize local civic life. Congress preserved room for local elections that are legally structured as nonpartisan, even when the employee otherwise falls within the chapter's coverage.

Enforcement through OSC and MSPB

Chapter 15's enforcement model is unusual if you are thinking in ordinary employment-law terms. Under § 1504, a federal grant-making agency that has reason to believe a violation occurred must report the matter to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). OSC can also act on other information that appears to warrant investigation. OSC then investigates and presents findings and charges to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Under § 1505, both the employee and the employing agency may appear with counsel. MSPB then decides whether a violation occurred and whether it warrants removal. So Chapter 15 uses federal investigative and adjudicative institutions, but it does so to police conditions attached to state and local administration rather than to supervise a federal workforce directly.

Grant withholding as the practical penalty

The statute's most distinctive remedy appears in 5 U.S.C. § 1506. If MSPB finds a violation that warrants removal and the employee is not removed within 30 days, or is removed and then brought back into a related state or local position within the statutory period, the responsible federal agency generally must withhold loans or grants to the employing agency. The withholding amount is capped by reference to two years of the employee's pay.

This is a structural remedy, not just a personal one. Congress designed the penalty to create pressure on the employing public agency, not merely on the individual employee. The logic is straightforward: if state or local agencies want the benefit of federal funds, they must not tolerate the kind of politicized conduct Chapter 15 forbids.

Subpoenas and judicial review

5 U.S.C. § 1507 gives MSPB subpoena power and related authority to gather testimony and documents. 5 U.S.C. § 1508 then provides judicial review in federal district court, with the possibility of further appellate review.

Those sections matter because they make Chapter 15 a real adjudicatory regime rather than a purely advisory funding condition. Covered disputes can generate formal records, compulsory process, and court review.

How It Works

Chapter 15 applies not to every public employee whose agency receives some federal money, but specifically to those whose principal employment involves activities financed by federal loans or grants — and even then, employees who perform no functions connected to the financed activity are excluded. The 2012 Hatch Act Modernization Act significantly narrowed the most contested provision: the partisan candidacy restriction in § 1502(a)(3) now applies only where the employee's salary is paid completely by federal loans or grants — a sharper threshold than the pre-2012 rule that restricted many partially federally connected workers. The misuse-of-office and political-coercion prohibitions in § 1502(a)(1)-(2) remain broad, however, and apply to all covered employees regardless of whether the salary-funding test permits partisan candidacy. Enforcement runs through OSC investigation and MSPB adjudication, but the statute's distinctive remedy under § 1506 falls on the employing agency rather than just the individual: if a violating employee is not removed within 30 days of an MSPB violation finding, the federal grant-making agency must withhold loans or grants from the state or local employer — a structural mechanism designed to align public agency incentives with the statute's integrity obligations.

How It Affects You

If you are a state or local employee working on a federally financed program: The most common violations are not candidacy-related — they're the everyday pressure cases: a supervisor asking employees to attend a fundraiser, a manager directing subordinates to put yard signs in their yards, or a department head using official meetings to build political support for an elected official. Those are Chapter 15 violations regardless of whether the employee's salary is 100% federal. The ban on using official authority for political ends and on coercing political contributions from coworkers applies broadly to covered employees.

If you are considering a partisan run for office and work for a grant-funded agency: Get an OSC advisory opinion before you file — it's free and takes the legal uncertainty off the table. The key post-2012 question is whether your salary (not your agency's funding, but your specific paycheck) is paid completely by federal loans or grants. If your agency is 30% federally funded but your salary is blended from multiple sources, you may be able to run. OSC offers informal advisory opinions on request; the better practice is to ask before announcing candidacy, not after an OSC investigation has started. Visit osc.gov to request one.

If you manage a state or local agency that receives federal funds: Treat political-activity pressure from above as a federal funding risk, not just an HR problem. If an elected official pressures your agency's employees to participate in campaign activities, and you fail to respond, Chapter 15 creates federal exposure. MSPB can find a violation and recommend withholding federal grants up to two years of the violating employee's salary. The practical risk falls on the agency's grant stream, not just the individual. When in doubt, document your response to political pressure; that documentation protects the agency in an OSC investigation.

If you are a voter or community member who witnessed Hatch Act coercion: OSC accepts complaints from anyone with evidence of a Chapter 15 violation. A coworker who was told to volunteer for a political campaign or face retaliation, a subordinate asked to donate at work, or a public official who used agency resources for a campaign rally — these are reportable to OSC. Complaints can be filed at osc.gov/hatch-act.html. The process is confidential during investigation.

State Variations

Chapter 15 is federal law and does not displace state or local political-activity rules. Many jurisdictions have their own "little Hatch Acts," ethics codes, civil-service restrictions, campaign-finance rules, or anti-coercion statutes that may be stricter than federal law. OSC itself notes that it does not enforce those state or local rules.

Implementing Regulations

Chapter 15 is implemented through 5 C.F.R. Part 151 — Political Activity of State or Local Officers or Employees — which gives OPM's implementing rules for the substantive prohibitions and candidacy exceptions. Key provisions:

• § 151.101 — Definitions: "State or local officer or employee" means an individual employed by a state or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants; excludes individuals who exercise no functions in connection with the financed activity and employees of educational/research institutions supported by a state or religious/philanthropic organization; "nonpartisan election" means an election where no candidate is nominated as representing a party that received Presidential electoral votes in the last Presidential election
• § 151.111 — Permissible activities: covered state and local employees are free to engage in all political activity not specifically restricted — including candidacy in a nonpartisan election and candidacy for political party office (delegate, committee member, party officer positions)
• § 151.121 — Core prohibitions: a covered state/local employee may not (a) use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomination, or (b) directly or indirectly coerce, command, or advise any state or local employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value for political purposes; and (c) may not be a candidate for partisan elective office if their salary is paid completely by federal loans or grants
• § 151.122 — Candidacy exceptions: the partisan candidacy prohibition in §151.121(c) does not apply to: governors and lieutenant governors; mayors; elected heads of state executive departments not under a merit/civil service system; individuals already holding elective office; activity in nonpartisan elections; candidacy for political party positions (officer, convention delegate, party committee member)

In practice, OSC advisory opinions are especially important for coverage questions because whether someone's principal employment is "in connection with" a federally financed activity — and whether their salary is "paid completely" by federal funds — turns on narrow factual questions about funding sources, job duties, and election structure.

Pending Legislation

As of April 9, 2026, there does not appear to be a major standalone 119th Congress bill aimed specifically at overhauling Chapter 15. The most consequential modern statutory change remains the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012, which narrowed the partisan-candidacy restriction and updated coverage language to include the District of Columbia and certain educational/research exclusions.

Recent Developments

The most important practical development is that OSC continues to emphasize the narrower post-2012 rule. OSC's current public guidance for state, D.C., and local employees says the federal Hatch Act no longer bars partisan candidacy unless the employee's salary is completely paid by federal loans or grants. That is the key contemporary compliance point for many public employees who still encounter outdated summaries of the law.

Enforcement has also remained active in concrete state and local settings. In December 2025, OSC announced Hatch Act complaints against officials in the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office in Virginia, alleging misuse of official events, public resources, and subordinate employees to support a sheriff's campaign. That case is a useful reminder that even when candidacy questions are narrower than they once were, the law's anti-coercion and misuse-of-authority provisions still carry real bite.

So Chapter 15's modern role is narrower but not trivial. It no longer acts as a sweeping bar on partisan candidacy for every grant-connected public employee. Instead, it functions more precisely as an anti-politicization rule for federally linked state and local administration, with a particular focus on coercion, misuse of office, and fully federally funded candidacies.