In Bertie County in February, an elected sheriff stepped aside to clear the way for his chief deputy to seek the office without violating the Hatch Act.

In Richmond County, three employees of the Richmond County Sheriff’s office sought the seat being vacated by Sheriff Dale Furr, something that unsuccessful candidate Eddie Martin says was a violation of the Act.

Martin told Richmond County elections officials he’s going to challenge the election.

First passed in 1939, then amended in 1993, the Hatch Act law essentially excludes federal employees and those who are involved with activities funded by federal grants from seeking public office.

While speaking with election officials, Martin cited the Hatch Act case in Bertie County when Sheriff Greg Atkins resigned his post so Chief Deputy John Holley could seek the office unencumbered by the federal provision.

Atkins said he had not planned on seeking reelection to his fourth term prior to learning about the provisions of the Hatch Act.

This is one of cases where allegations of Hatch Act violations are having a bearing on the outcome of local elections in North Carolina, but is telling because it was handled before candidates filed to run in the primary.

His resignation went into effect on Feb. 5, and Holley was then appointed sheriff. After facing opposition in his Democratic primary, Holley has captured the party’s nomination in Bertie.

At the time of his resignation, Atkins called the Hatch Act implications on that county’s race a “legal issue.”

“Because of this legal issue, the only practical way for him to run was for me to step aside,” Atkins told the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. “I was going to support John (Holley) when he ran for sheriff.”

U.S. Office of Special Counsel Hatch Act Unit Deputy Chief Erica Hamrick said whether an individual is subject to the Hatch Act is “very fact-specific.”

“It’s a matter of whether the employee’s job duties are related to the activities funded by the grant,” Hamrick said. “Almost every single federal grant includes these provisions.”

She also said it is not uncommon for a determination over an individual being subject to the Hatch Act to impact local elections.

“There are many cases where we advise people they are subject to the Hatch Act, and advise them either to resign their office or withdraw from the race,” Hamrick said. “That impacts an election.”

She went on to say there is no uniform time period for an investigation of alleged Hatch Act violations, but a case like Richmond County’s would receive priority to execute.

“We have a very large caseload right now, but cases where a candidate is currently running for office and the allegation is that they’re running in violation of the Hatch Act, those cases are moved to the top of the list,” she said.

Martin said his contact with federal authorities has encouraged him to prosecute his complaint, and he is currently compiling information for the complaint.

He doesn’t wish to bring any hardship on his competitors or the county, though.

“It’s not about being mad or upset about a loss,” Martin said. “It’s about pursuing every avenue I can to correct something that was wrong. This is my last chance to run for sheriff. I wouldn’t run again because of my age.”

He said he’s also been told there is no statute of limitations on Hatch Act violations, and those can also include actions like campaigning while on duty, handing out campaign literature or appearing in public in uniform to campaign and using county-owned vehicles for campaign purposes.

“(The U.S. Office of Special Counsel Hatch Act Unit) has indicated to me that from what I’ve told them, there does seem to be numerous violations, and they would happily investigate it,” Martin said.

According to News-Herald Managing Editor Cal Bryant, Atkins sought the advice of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel before making the decision, and was advised to pursue this course of action.

Bertie County Manager Zee Lamb explained the funds in question were $10,900 worth of stimulus funding that was awarded to the sheriff’s office in a non-competitive process.

“All we had to do was sign the grant, and some bureaucrat in Washington interpreted that to mean that any officer in the department who had a supervisory role over the person who wrote the grant was then ineligible to run,” Lamb said, pointing out there is a provision for sitting elected officials in the law. “This was never the intention of the Hatch Act when it was originally passed or when it was later amended, to allow the long arm of the federal government to come down and sway a county or local election, based on an allocated grant of $10,900.”

Richmond County Sheriff’s Office Maj. James Clemmons, who took more than 40 percent of the popular vote in the primary to win outright, oversees the RCSO Patrol Division, which is funded, in part, through grants from the state and federal governments.

One of his opponents, RCSO Capt. Wendall Sessoms, oversees the department’s Detective Division, which is also the recipient of periodical grants.

The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office was also the recipient of stimulus funding through the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program.

Lamb said he’s been working with his district’s house member, U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, to stop the law from being interpreted in this manner.

“This is an absurd result, and my hope is that Rep. Butterfield and others in Congress can work to clarify the law so it won’t have such a chilling effect on people who are seeking local offices,” Lamb said.

“No matter what happens, I believe in the future police departments and sheriff’s departments will be more cognizant of their activities related to the Hatch Act,” Martin said.

Staff Writer Philip D. Brown can be reached at (910) 997-3111 ext. 32, or by e-mail at pbrown@yourdailyjournal.com.