“Behind the Ballot: How States Fact‑Check Candidates — and How They Don’t”

Introduction

When voters see names on a ballot, they assume those candidates have been vetted. In reality, the process varies wildly across the United States. Some states do little more than accept paperwork, while others use federal databases to confirm eligibility. The lack of uniformity raises questions about fairness, transparency, and whether stronger fact‑checking should be required nationwide.

The Federal Gap

• No national checklist: There is no single federal administrative system that verifies candidate eligibility across all states.

• Self‑attestation: Most candidates simply sign forms swearing they meet requirements (citizenship, residency, age) under penalty of perjury.

• New federal tools: The Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program now allows states to verify immigration and citizenship status using Social Security numbers.

  
  

State Approaches

Here’s how different states handle candidate fact‑checking:

State	Verification Method	Notes
Arizona, Georgia, Kansas	Require documentary proof of citizenship for candidates	Often controversial; critics say it burdens candidates unnecessarily
North Carolina	Checks residency and age; criminal records only if challenged	Boards of election cannot “go behind” candidates unless a protest is filed
California	Requires sworn statements; limited background checks	Relies heavily on self‑attestation
Texas	Verifies residency and voter registration status	No automatic criminal record checks
Florida	Uses state databases to confirm voter registration and residency	Citizenship verified only if challenged
New York	Minimal checks; relies on sworn affidavits	Challenges must be filed by opponents

The SAVE Act Debate

• The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act) would require documentary proof of citizenship for all candidates and voters.

• Supporters argue it ensures integrity.

• Critics warn it could overburden election officials and disenfranchise legitimate candidates.

  
  

Why It Matters

• Public Trust: Without consistent fact‑checking, voters may question whether candidates are truly eligible.

• Legal Loopholes: In states with minimal checks, individuals with disqualifying records could slip through until challenged.

• Uneven Standards: A candidate might face strict vetting in one state but almost none in another.

  
  

Conclusion

Fact‑checking candidates in America is a patchwork system. Some states demand proof of citizenship or residency, while others rely on little more than a signature. Federal tools like the SAVE program are expanding, but without a national standard, controversies will continue. If democracy is to be safeguarded, states must strengthen their own procedures — and election boards must know the law well enough to enforce them.

Sources: USCIS SAVE program; Factually analysis of candidate verificationfactually.co; Institute for Responsive Government on the SAVE Act; White House fact sheet on election integrity The White House.