What are Background Checks and what are they used for?

Transparency In Politics uses PeopleTrail for candidates’ background checks. The background report is part of its offering to political candidates and is quite comprehensive. This report is based on information supplied by the candidates, including their social security numbers. Almost all background checks include a criminal history check. These checks will review felony and misdemeanor criminal convictions (not charges that were dropped or settled), pending criminal cases, and any history of incarceration as an adult. In addition, checks can include verification of employment history, education, or professional licensing. This service is very different from the “background check” you might run a potential “date.”

Who uses background checks?

“The SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) found that the great majority of organizations (92 percent) conduct background checks, mostly at the pre-employment stage (87 percent). Nearly all screens are searches for criminal records (98 percent). Fifteen percent of respondents said they rescreen workers annually, 13 percent perform checks when triggered by an event, and 10 percent screen when someone is promoted or changes jobs.”

• Transportation
• Education
• Financial Services
• Healthcare
• Non-profits
• Retail
• Technology
• Manufacturing

Do government agencies require background checks?

That is a great question! Here are a few that consistently require background checks and possibly drug testing and/or credit checks: public schools, law enforcement, fire departments, the military (which requires an FBI check), and US government civil service jobs. “Every person hired for a federal job must undergo a background investigation to ensure that they are ‘reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the United States.’This is an important and lengthy part of the process. ”

“This list is not all-inclusive; interestingly, a criminal conviction does not necessarily exclude a person from the military. If a job requires a certain clearance, a more in-depth check is run on the person. This may include interviews with co-workers, friends, acquaintances, etc., and even a credit check.”

Why are background checks important?

I have to chuckle about the statement on the Trakstar website: “It’s obviously important to hire upstanding people…” I say this because background checks are not required for political candidates! Did you get that? POLITICAL CANDIDATES DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK TO RUN FOR OFFICE! So I guess it’s not obvious to everyone! I’ll talk more about that later in this post. That being said, here is what a background check can do for an “employer” according to the Trakstar site:

• Verify the candidate is qualified – Some people, unfortunately, embellish their work history or education when job searching. You could end up hiring someone who is unqualified if you fail to check their background.
• Perform a character check – Even if someone only slightly exaggerates their background, it’s a sign of dishonesty. Ensure your company only hires high-character people by verifying an applicant’s resume is 100 percent accurate.
• Keep your workplace safe – The importance of protecting your employees, customers and company as a whole goes without saying. Background checks save you from hiring any dangerous or unsavory individuals.
• Reduce your company’s liability – Your company can lower insurance costs and avoid unnecessary lawsuits by only hiring people who clear a pre-employment screening.
• Avoid bad hires – Hiring the wrong person is costly and frustrating. Making the small effort to conduct a background check before you hire someone will prevent major problems from occurring later.

Here are some questions to consider for candidates:

• Qualifications? How do we know that a political candidate is qualified to do the job we’re asking them to do?
• Character check? Is exaggerating their background a sign of a candidate’s dishonesty?
• Safe workplace? Do government employees who work with elected officials have a right to be protected from those that might have a criminal record?
• Reduce liability? Can background checks of political candidates reduce taxpayer liability?
• Bad hires? Can we minimize having unsavory elected officials with background checks?

Background checks can help reduce the risk for criminal activities such as violence, abuse and theft. No wonder employers do them before hiring! Without a doubt, those checks confirm the identity of the employee. While it’s rare (we think), it’s possible for candidates to be “impostors”-that is, not who they say they are.

Why don’t political candidates have to have a background check?

That is another great question! Historically, the founding fathers could never have imagined that anyone in the government they envisioned would actually NEED to have their background checked! Of course, in the 1700s, the lack of data and technology made the kind of checks we have today unthinkable.

As we know, deception and lying are not new to politics, but with social media, this problem has exploded. Now, more than ever, background checks for political candidates are a good idea. Without a doubt, anyone who is registered to vote can see that some elected officials couldn’t pass a background check for a large retailer!

Limitations for the Registrar of Voters

According to some workers in the Registrar of Voters, timelines and staffing limitations make it impossible to verify the residency of those who file to run for office. The Registrar of Voters has no authority to deny anyone with an ID the right to run for office if they pay the filing fee. If a candidate’s unacceptable residency is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by someone else (most likely an opponent), there is a process for removing that person from office. You can read more about that in the post called How to Challenge a Candidate’s Qualifications in Nevada. Or if the information is brought out publicly, the person may choose to resign. This situation recently occurred with the City Council in St. Petersburg, Florida. was found to live in the wrong district. She chose to resign and avoid more public embarrassment.

Do elected officials ever have a background check run on them?

As a Trustee of the Washoe County School District, I was required to be fingerprinted after I was sworn in. To my knowledge, there was no other background check performed. Of course, I did have access to students, so that was understandable and wise practice. The Nevada State Treasurer is required to be bonded, which involves a rigorous investigation. I’m glad since he deals with close to a million dollars of investments! However, to run for office, this was not required. In the State of Nevada, and most all other states I researched, background checks were not required for candidates.

In fact, there are very few requirements to run for office: be of a certain age and verify your identity (which is usually done through voter rolls). However, a candidate for political office is not required to be a registered voter. One must only be eligible to vote, but this is not verified either. In fact, there is no education requirement for any office, except Attorney General and judges due to the requirement that they be licensed attorneys.

Surprisingly, the President of the United States is not required to have a background check! While a security clearance is not required for the President, it is required for members of the Cabinet.

What about Congress?

Interestingly, In 2011, The Congressional Research Service published a report entitled “ Protection of Classified Information by Congress: Practices and Proposals.” As you will see, nothing has changed since then. The following paragraph sums up the state of clearances for Members of Congress:

“A variety of proposals—coming from congressional bodies, government commissions, and other groups—have called for changes in the procedures for handling and safeguarding classified information in the custody of Congress. These plans, some of which might be controversial or costly, focus on setting uniform standards for congressional offices and employees and heightening access eligibility requirements.” (The general proposal was this: mandate that members of Congress hold security clearances to be eligible for access to classified information.) “This would mark a significant and unprecedented departure from the past. Members of Congress (as with the President and Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, or other federal court judges) have never been required to hold security clearances.”

To date (over twenty years later), Congress has not adopted this proposal. Still, classified information is not protected by clearances from Members of Congress.

What makes sense to you regarding background checks for politicians?

Respond to our poll.