MontoCo Dems raise Hatch Act questions over Stephens

Democrats in Montgomery County are raising Hatch Act questions about a Republican candidate for the state House, saying his role as an assistant district attorney involved in a federally-funded taskforce prohibits him from running in a partisan election.

The candidate at issue is Todd Stephens, the Assistant District Attorney for Montgomery County who is currently running against state Rep. Rick Taylor (D-Ambler) in the 151st Legislative District. While Stephens' campaign denies any Hatch Act issues are remotely at play, the Montgomery County Democratic Committee has asked the federal Office of Special Counsel to offer its opinion on the matter.

Democrats are seizing on Stephens' role with the county's Sex Crimes Unit, through which he works with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The task force itself is federally funded, and provisions of the Hatch Act prohibit municipal employees whose jobs or activities are federally funded from running in partisan elections.

In a statement, Montgomery Democratic Committee Chair Marcel Groen called on Stephens to either cease his election bid or step down from prosecutorial post.

"Mr. Stephens is ignoring the law as he campaigns for himself and at the same time administers a program supported by federal funds," Groen said.

Whether the Democrats' interpretation of the law is applicable is a matter of fierce debate. County officials say no federal funding comes directly to Stephens' office, and while District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman could not be reached by PolitickerPA.com late last week, she told The Intelligencer that the Democrats were "just plain wrong."

Stephens spokesman Jason Ercole called the move "a political gimmick."

"I think it's a joke that the Democrats and Rep. Taylor would attack a career prosecutor who's putting the safety of kids at the top of his priorities," he said.

As evidence of possible Hatch Act violations, Democrats point to an opinion issued by the Office of Special Council in 2007. That opinion found, in what Democrats said was a similar case, that "employees are subject to the Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of their principal employment, they perform duties in connection with the federal financed activities."

But the 2007 opinion is heavily redacted, making it difficult to determine the exact nature of the previous case in question.

The Office of Special Counsel did not return a call seeking comment.