Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 5, 1992 TAG: 9201060206
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
HATCH ACT
AFTER the raspberries state Sen.-elect Henry L. Marsh got for proposing to keep his seat on Richmond City Council while also serving in the General Assembly, you'd think other lawmakers would be right finicky in avoiding similar situations.But along came Sen.-elect Louise Lucas of Portsmouth, saying she intended to hang on to her $51,000-a-year job as head of a Tidewater anti-poverty agency - despite a ruling it would be illegal under the federal Hatch Act. The act prohibits federal employees, as well as some people working for federally funded programs, from holding partisan office. Lucas' agency receives federal funds for the area Head Start program.
Lucas, a Democrat, claimed she could both serve in the Senate and keep her job with the Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project because the U.S. Office of Special Counsel failed to inform her promptly that such an arrangement would be illegal.
She had a point: She sought an opinion from the special counsel in June, but didn't receive an answer until two days after she won the Nov. 5 election. In a letter dated the day before the election, the special counsel opined that it was "too late in the election process" to demand she either resign her job or withdraw as a candidate.
Like Marsh before her, however, Lucas now has backed off from her plan, and said Thursday she intends to quit her post as soon as she can find another with a comparable salary. She should, and sooner rather than later. Not only is there the Hatch Act question, but this week she is to take an oath of office that includes a vow to uphold the Virginia Constitution. The state Constitution says that "no person holding any office or post of profit or emolument under the United States government, or who is in the employment of such government shall be eligible" to serve in the state legislature.
Lucas' situation seems to carry less potential for conflict of interest than Marsh's. And one may legitimately ask why, if public schoolteachers and professors at state-supported colleges are allowed to serve in the General Assembly, federal employees cannot.
But bureaucratic procrastination is not the way to veto a federal law, and simply ignoring it is not the way to amend a provision of the state Constitution.