May 24, 2007 11:59 PM UTC

Coffman's Office Responds to Questions of Legality

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Jonathan Tee, a spokesman for Secretary of State Mike Coffman (who, by the way, has still not spoken to the media himself about his current troubles), sent us an unsolicited e-mail response to a post yesterday where we wondered if Coffman’s new political prohibition rules were even legal. Here is the response in full:

The Secretary of State’s office vetted the new policy through the Attorney General’s office and researched policies of other state elections officials and relevant case law. Below (and attached) are two US Supreme Court cases regarding restricting outside political activity of state employees:

Courts have found that governments may limit the political activates of current government employees to ensure impartial execution of the laws and maintain public confidence in governmental fairness (United States Civil Service Commissions v. National Association of Letter Carriers AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973))

But, in determining the validity of a restraint on job-related speech of public employees, a court must arrive at a balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the government, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. (United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 130 L.Ed.2d. 964 (1995))

Last week CCEG described our policy as “too little, too late” (Denver Post online story); but this week the same group is calling the same policy too strict. That’s certainly an interesting inconsistency.