Democratic primary sheriff candidate Eddie Martin’s election complaint went in the mail Monday, and is expected to be received in Washington D.C. on Wednesday.

Martin contends he is the only one of the four candidates in the Democratic primary who was qualified to run based on the provisions of the federal Hatch Act. The other three candidates are actively employed by the sheriff’s office.

“I just want the rule of law to apply,” Martin reiterated after mailing his packet Monday morning. “This isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about fairness and the rule of law being applied to the election.”

Martin said he resigned his magistrate’s office to pursue becoming Sheriff of Richmond County, and he feels that others should be subject to the same standards he held for himself.

“The election should’ve been done within the framework of the law,” Martin said. “It’s unfair to me, and it’s unfair to everyone who supported me and contributed to my campaign.”

Richmond County Sheriff Dale Furr said recently that he has researched the provisions of the Hatch Act and doesn’t believe Richmond County Sheriff’s Office Maj. James Clemmons, who won the Democratic primary outright with about 42 percent of the vote, is covered by it.

Clemmons declined to comment on the case Monday.

With the complaint in hand, federal authorities will be poised to spring into action, according to U.S. Office of Special Counsel Hatch Act Unit Deputy Chief Erica Hamrick. She told the Daily Journal cases involving a current election are expedited.

As has also been previously reported, Richmond County is far from the only North Carolina county whose primary and general elections are being impacted by the Hatch Act.

In a February blog on the UNC School of Government’s Local Government Blog, Robert Joyce called the Hatch Act a potentially “effective political tool” that is being used “with frequency in sheriff’s races.”

Joyce explained the Hatch Act was first applied to “the executive officer of a North Carolina county sheriff’s office” in a 2002 case.

In that case, the chief deputy was found to be “employed in connection with federal funds because he was responsible for administrative functions and grant-writing for several programs funded with federal funds.”

Joyce said they included the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program, the Violence Against Women grant program, a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and the Drug Control and System Improvement grant program.

“The source of funds for his salary was not an issue,” Joyce wrote.

He said the two questions posed to someone who’s had an alleged violation of the Hatch Act lodged against them include: (1) the nature of federal loans or grants that the agency receives; and (2) Your duties and the connection between those duties and the funds.

He said virtually all investigations by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s Hatch Act Unit stem from complaints lodged against agencies or individuals.

“Increasingly, political opponents are learning that a complaint about a possible Hatch Act violation can be an effective political tool,” Joyce wrote.

In addition to a case in Bertie County where the sheriff stepped aside and allowed his chief deputy to take the office so he could enjoy the law’s exemption for “those who hold an elective office,” there are at least three other sheriff’s races being impacted by the Hatch Act in 2010.

In March, the Salisbury Post reported Rowan County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Kevin Auten resigned his post after learning he was covered by the Hatch Act.

In that case, the county commissioners voted to make Auten the acting sheriff to avoid a violation of the federal rule. He has since claimed the GOP nomination for sheriff in the county.

In Wilkes County, the chief deputy of the sheriff’s office was found not to be covered in the Hatch Act, clearing the way for him to run for sheriff.

In Craven County, River Bend Patrolman Ernest Thomas was found not to be covered by the Hatch Act, according to the New Bern Sun Journal.

In an article the newspaper ran this month, it was reported Thomas received a letter stating that because “he does not apply for the grant, manage the grant, order equipment with grant funds or supervise anyone with any of those responsibilities” he escaped the act’s provisions.

Should a candidate be found to be in violation of the Hatch Act, they are asked to remove themselves from the race or resign their employment.

If neither of these happen within a specified time frame, the agency that employs the individual can be fined for up to twice the annual salary of the candidate.

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