Many believed I would not press the issue after the District 8 runoff, followed by a level of mayoral, council, and undue political influence to a degree we've never seen. Some highly uninformed people considered my outrage akin to me being a sore loser. What many did not understand until the questioning of Eric Atkins and Attorney Jerry Summers was a newly created problem that transcended me as a candidate and set forth precedence unimaginable.
- Will the community ever choose its representatives again or those in power?
- Will mayors down the line step in and publicly use city time and property as a platform to choose council members who will rubber stamp their agenda?
- Should the community accept this self-centered behavior as the new standard?
The days following the election would be a whirlwind. I had only five days after the election to contest the results and have an attorney do so. This route didn't particularly appeal to me after being bounced between the Hamilton County Election Commission and the Hamilton County Clerk's Office. If local politicians could use their influence in such an egregious manner, could I trust the courts at home to be fair and justice blind? I sought council and concluded the best route would be to send a formal complaint to Secretary of State Tre Hargett's office. After months of following up, phone discussions, and interviews with community members who also were turned away at the polls, I was informed that my original assumptions about our politicians' decisions were correct.
The email correspondence I received explicitly states that under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-19-208 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-19-201, a violation of the Little Hatch Act, is a Class C misdemeanor, which is enforceable by the District Attorney General. The Secretary of State can only investigate and enforce as far as the election commission. Holding our elected officials accountable for breaking the law is now in the lap of Coty Wamp. For over a week, I have attempted to contact General Wamp and left messages, to which she has not replied. Her secretary has all but brushed off my follow-ups and made excuses for her.
This is unacceptable, considering the magnitude of this issue and the oath Attorney Wamp swore before assuming power. If no one is above the law, our elected officials are included. The threats to our democracy have never been more significant, and undo influence in elections or disruption to peaceful transfers of power seek to be the greatest unraveling of our republic.
I am publicly requesting Attorney General Coty Wamp to accept the responsibility given to her by our Secretary of States office to pursue this matter to the best of her ability. The political future of Chattanooga hangs in the balance.
Respectfully,
Marie R. Mott
Civil Rights Activist
* * *
The endorsement of a candidate by an elected political official is legal under every interpretation of the law, and is a normal, accepted and vital part of our nation's political dialogue. From the president to the governor to the mayor to individual members of city council, political endorsements by elected political figures are routine and legal, as a cursory Google search easily proves.
In fact, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for the United States of America has already determined in this particular case that no laws were broken, and cleared the mayor and his staff of any violations of the Hatch Act.
Political speech by elected political leaders is not only allowed, it is what they are elected to do.
The Hatch Act and various Little Hatch Acts are good laws designed to prevent certain things such as the coercion of government workers or the use of public funds or work hours for political ends by non-elected staff. But this is not that. The letters of exoneration from the U.S. office of special counsel should put this matter to rest.
Ellis Smith
_ _ _
Mayor Timothy Kelly
VIA EMAIL: mayor@chattanooga.gov
RE: OSC Case File No. HA-23-000010
Dear Mayor Kelly:
This letter is in response to a complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel alleging that you violated the Hatch Act by endorsing, campaigning, or supporting a candidate for Chattanooga City Council – District 8. As explained below, OSC has concluded that, even if true, this alleged activity did not violate the Hatch Act, and we are closing our file in this matter without further action.
The Hatch Act1 governs the political activity of certain state and local government employees in order to protect the public workforce from partisan political influence and ensure the nonpartisan administration of laws. State and local employees who perform job duties in connection with a program or activity financed with federal grants or loans are prohibited from, among other things, using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or nomination for office.2 While the statute itself does not set forth language expressly limiting the Hatch Act’s prohibitions to partisan political activity, the Hatch Act’s legislative history and relevant case law demonstrate that the Hatch Act is applicable only to partisan activity. For example, when addressing the constitutionality of the Hatch Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that it is “only partisan political activity that is interdicted.”3
OSC has confirmed that the election for Chattanooga City Council is nonpartisan. Therefore, even if you were covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act,4 your alleged activity did not violate the Act. Accordingly, we are closing our file on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact OSC attorney Nicqelle Fleming at (202) 804-7133.
Sincerely,
Erica S. Hamrick
Deputy Chief, Hatch Act Unit
_ _ _ _
Mr. Chris Anderson
VIA EMAIL: canderson@chattanooga.gov
RE: OSC Case File No. HA-23-000012
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter is in response to a complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel alleging that you violated the Hatch Act by endorsing, campaigning, or supporting a candidate for Chattanooga City Council – District 8. As explained below, OSC has concluded that, even if true, this alleged activity did not violate the Hatch Act, and we are closing our file in this matter without further action.
The Hatch Act1 governs the political activity of certain state and local government employees in order to protect the public workforce from partisan political influence and ensure the nonpartisan administration of laws. State and local employees who perform job duties in connection with a program or activity financed with federal grants or loans are prohibited from, among other things, using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or nomination for office.2 While the statute itself does not set forth language expressly limiting the Hatch Act’s prohibitions to partisan political activity, the Hatch Act’s legislative history and relevant case law demonstrate that the Hatch Act is applicable only to partisan activity. For example, when addressing the constitutionality of the Hatch Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that it is “only partisan political activity that is interdicted.”3
OSC has confirmed that the election for Chattanooga City Council is nonpartisan. Therefore, even if you were covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act,4 your alleged activity did not violate the Act. Accordingly, we are closing our file on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact OSC attorney Nicqelle Fleming at (202) 804-7133.
Sincerely,
Erica S. Hamrick
Deputy Chief, Hatch Act Unit
- - -
Mr. Joda Thongnopnua
VIA EMAIL: jthongnopnua@chattanooga.gov
RE: OSC Case File No. HA-23-000013
Dear Mr. Thongnopnua:
This letter is in response to a complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel alleging that you violated the Hatch Act by endorsing, campaigning, or supporting a candidate for Chattanooga City Council – District 8. As explained below, OSC has concluded that, even if true, this alleged activity did not violate the Hatch Act, and we are closing our file in this matter without further action.
The Hatch Act1 governs the political activity of certain state and local government employees in order to protect the public workforce from partisan political influence and ensure the nonpartisan administration of laws. State and local employees who perform job duties in connection with a program or activity financed with federal grants or loans are prohibited from, among other things, using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or nomination for office.2 While the statute itself does not set forth language expressly limiting the Hatch Act’s prohibitions to partisan political activity, the Hatch Act’s legislative history and relevant case law demonstrate that the Hatch Act is applicable only to partisan activity. For example, when addressing the constitutionality of the Hatch Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that it is “only partisan political activity that is interdicted.”3
OSC has confirmed that the election for Chattanooga City Council is nonpartisan. Therefore, even if you were covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act,4 your alleged activity did not violate the Act. Accordingly, we are closing our file on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact OSC attorney Nicqelle Fleming at (202) 804-7133.
Sincerely,
Erica S. Hamrick
Deputy Chief, Hatch Act Unit