Candidates challenging Inglewood’s entrenched mayor and City Council have been forced by the city to complete fingerprint-based background checks before their names can appear on the ballot, a level of scrutiny that far exceeds the typical requirements for elected officials elsewhere in Los Angeles County.
Five candidates interviewed by the Southern California News Group say the City Clerk’s Office did not notify them of this requirement when they pulled their candidacy paperwork weeks ago. Instead, the city staff advised the candidates about it only after they turned in their nomination forms during the final step of the process.
A “Notice to Candidates” on Inglewood’s website outlining the process makes no mention of the need for a background check.
At least two of the candidates, delayed by long waits to secure an appointment with the city clerk, said they learned about the requirement only days before the Friday, Aug. 12, filing deadline. None of the four candidates interviewed by the Southern California News Group were concerned about the contents of their background checks, though some worried about the overall safety of their personal information.
Alena Cindy Giardina, a retired probation officer and former appointed councilwoman, is running against Councilman George Dotson in District 1. She initially attempted to turn in her paperwork Aug. 1, but was turned away by a security guard and told to make an appointment, she said.
The soonest the city clerk could schedule time for her was a week later, just four days before the Aug. 12 filing deadline. Giardina learned she needed to get her fingerprints scanned that same day.
“You think you’ve fulfilled all of the requirements and then they throw it on you with three or four days left to accomplish it,” Giardina said.
Unusual for elective offices
While “Live Scan” background checks are common for new employees in both the public and private sector, they’re out of the ordinary for elected officials. California’s Elections Code does prohibit any person convicted of a felony involving bribery, embezzlement of public money, theft of public money or perjury from holding state or local elective office.
But a Live Scan can cover an individual’s entire criminal history, including arrests, misdemeanors and sometimes even dismissed charges, not just felonies.
“It’s intrusive,” Giardina said. “You have no idea who that information is going to, or who is going to have access to it.”
By comparison, someone running for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, a position overseeing the most populous county in the United States, only has to attest to the fact that he or she has not been convicted of a prohibited felony, according to the county Registrar-Recorder’s Office. Other neighboring jurisdictions, including Torrance, simply verify residency.
‘Chilling effect’
Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, an advocacy group focused on voting rights and good governance, said Inglewood is the first city he’s aware of to require a candidate to obtain a background check just to appear on the ballot.
“It just seems like it could have a chilling effect on potential candidates,” said McMorris, who serves as the watchdog group’s transparency, ethics and accountability program manager. “It seems like an undue hurdle for a candidate, especially a grassroots candidate who may not have a lot of money, resources or knowledge of the law.”
The lack of notification to candidates ahead of time about this unusual requirement is a “big problem since it appears to be systemic,” he said. That, combined with weeklong waits for appointments, could be seen as “anti-participatory.”
“Candidates and the public should rightly question this practice,” he said.
‘This is about control’
Erick Holly, the former head of Inglewood’s Chamber of Commerce and a candidate for mayor, said he isn’t surprised Inglewood is making it more difficult for people to run for office.
“L.A. County doesn’t do this,” he said. “But our little 9-square-mile city does. That leads me to believe this is about control.”
Though independently elected, the city clerk ultimately answers to the City Council because it controls her salary, Holly said. When City Treasurer Wanda Brown, who is similarly independently elected, raised concerns about what she believed were financial irregularities, the council slashed her salary from $96,000 to $16,850 annually, the amount outlined for her position by the city charter.
Brown is now suing the city, alleging that the council retaliated against her. Mayor James T. Butts Jr. and the council have countered, saying she misled the public and was no longer qualified to handle extra duties — and the extra pay that came with it — given to her.
It’s unclear when the Live Scan requirement was added, or why.
City clerk defends policy
In an email, City Clerk Aisha Thompson said she was amazed she was “being questioned, especially when all I am doing is asking each potential candidate to do a Live Scan to clear them so if, in fact, someone is a convicted felon, it would not cost our Inglewood tax payers.”
She pointed to the prohibited felonies outlined in the state Elections Code as the authority for the background checks. Thompson, who previously served as the city’s deputy city clerk, did not respond to questions asking when the change was made, who decided on it, or why candidates did not receive earlier notification about it.
She also said candidates must make appointments to pick up and turn in their nomination papers so that she can go through the paperwork with them, a process that takes about a half-hour.
Background checks were not a requirement during the 2020 election when Thompson was elected to the city clerk’s position.
Angelique Johnson, a candidate in the mayoral race, ran for City Council that year and said she was surprised when she learned last week that the city was now requiring the extra step. She found out while turning in the 40 signatures necessary to qualify for the upcoming race.
“They slipped it in at the last minute as I was leaving,” she said.
Both Johnson and Yolanda Davidson, a candidate for the City Council in District 1, said the need for an appointment delayed them from turning in their paperwork by about a week. Both described other hurdles, including missing documents in their campaign packets and slow responses to requests for more information.
Davidson said she had tried to turn in the signatures she collected early in case the City Clerk’s Office needed her to make any corrections. But she was told the earliest she could get in was Aug. 10.
“The process has not been smooth,” she said. “There’s always shenanigans in Inglewood politics.”
The election is likely to be a hotly contested.
A list of potential candidates on the city’s website indicates 20 people have expressed interest in running in the Nov. 8 election, which will see challenges to the mayor as well as the District 1 and the District 2 council members. Of those 20, the city clerk has confirmed the candidacy of nine — including all three incumbents — as of the last update to the list on Aug. 11.