Opinion | Kellyanne Conway, Will You Please Testify Now?

The White House has directed another aide to defy Congress’s efforts to perform its basic oversight duties. This time it is Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor, being instructed not to appear before the House Oversight and Reform Committee to answer questions about her repeated violations of the Hatch Act, the 1939 ethics law prohibiting federal employees from engaging in partisan activities while on the job.

Ms. Conway’s chronic flouting of the law has been so flagrant that the Office of Special Counsel, the independent government agency tasked with enforcing the Hatch Act, this month officially recommended the president dismiss her. “Her defiant attitude is inimical to the law, and her continued pattern of misconduct is unacceptable,” the agency concluded. (The office is not to be confused with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative operation at the Department of Justice.)

The White House responded by dismissing the recommendation while attacking the responsible agency for perpetrating an “unprecedented” assault on Ms. Conway’s “constitutional rights to free speech and due process.” A deputy press secretary, Steven Groves, suggested the findings had been “influenced by media pressure and liberal organizations.”

The White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, replied with an 11-page memo to the agency’s chief, Henry Kerner, criticizing the entire investigation as flawed, unfair and “tainted by inappropriate external influences.”

Mr. Kerner is a Trump appointee.

It’s hard to fault Congress for wanting answers. In its 17-page report, Mr. Kerner’s agency detailed how Ms. Conway has obliterated the line separating her role as government official from her role as partisan cheerleader. On social media and in official media appearances, the report noted, she has “engaged in a pattern of partisan attacks” on Democratic presidential contenders, including Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke and Joe Biden.

Her commentary has not been subtle. She accused Ms. Warren of “lying” about her ethnicity, retweeted a reference to Mr. Biden as “Creepy Uncle Joe” and suggested that Mr. Booker is “sexist.” She has dismissed the entire Democratic field as a pile of “presidential wood chips” — as opposed to candidates of presidential timber — and openly promoted Mr. Trump’s re-election.

“Each of these actions constitutes a violation of the Hatch Act’s prohibition on the use of official authority to interfere with or affect an election,” the agency said.

This is not Ms. Conway’s first ticket. In February 2017, the Office of Government Ethics cited Ms. Conway for endorsing Ivanka Trump’s product line, calling it “a clear violation of the prohibition against misuse of position” and suggesting disciplinary action. Just over a year later, the special counsel’s office cited her for violations of the Hatch Act, at which time it recommended “appropriate disciplinary action.” Since then, the agency has issued repeated warnings about her continuing transgressions. Ms. Conway understands the law; she is simply unconcerned about facing any consequences. “Blah, blah, blah,” she mocked in a recent interview. “Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”

Such open disdain is part of what prompted the special counsel to recommend dismissal. “As a highly visible member of the administration, Ms. Conway’s violations, if left unpunished, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act’s restrictions,” Mr. Kerner wrote the president.

Such concerns have failed to move the White House. On Monday, Mr. Cipollone sent a letter to Representative Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the oversight committee, arguing that it is common practice for White House aides to decline invitations to testify before congressional committees.

Mr. Cummings responded by threatening to subpoena Ms. Conway and to hold her in contempt if she refused to comply. “The president is not above the law, and nor is Ms. Conway above the law,” he said.

If the White House truly believes that requiring Ms. Conway to abide by the Hatch Act constitutes an unacceptable affront to the First Amendment, the answer is not to encourage her to continue breaking the law. Instead, she and other administration officials should work to educate Congress and the public about why it is the Hatch Act that needs to be overhauled — or perhaps repealed altogether.

Fairness dictates that if the law places an undue burden on a high-profile aide like Ms. Conway, it should not be imposed on federal workers of lower rank. A congressional hearing, preferably televised, seems like a fitting venue for such a discussion.