Obama administration's double standard on background checks: They oppose voter IDs and criminal background checks by employers, but support criminal background checks for guns

The Obama administration has pushed to block voter ID requirements because they reportedly discriminate against minorities.
The Obama administration on Monday blocked a new law in Texas requiring voters to show photo identification before they can cast a ballot, citing a concern that it could harm Hispanic voters who lacked such documents. 
The law, which was approved in May 2011, required voters to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, military identification card, birth certificate with a photo, current U.S. passport, or concealed handgun permit. 
The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, or more than 300,000, did not have a driver's license or state-issued identification card, and that plans to mitigate those concerns were incomplete. . . .
 The Obama administration also opposes companies engaging in criminal background checks for their employees.  A nice summary is available from Judicial Watch:
BMW and Dollar General are “very serious systematic race discrimination cases,” according to the EEOC’s general counsel. The agency found “statistical disparities” in the hiring rates of “blacks and nonblacks” after the companies ran criminal-background checks. Dollar General revoked conditional employment offers for 10% of its black applicants but only 7% of “nonblack” applicants during a three-year period, the EEOC revealed, calling it a “gross disparity” based on race. 
BMW’s offense was requiring that employees of a new logistics contractor undergo criminal background checks in 2008. Of the 645 employees who would work at the auto maker’s South Carolina plant, 88 were terminated based on their criminal record. The EEOC says because 80% of the terminated employees were black, BMW “disproportionately screened out African Americans from jobs.” 
Since Obama became president, the EEOC has pushed hard to deter companies from using criminal background checks to screen job applicants because the administration says it discriminates against blacks. Last year soft drink manufacturer Pepsi Co. paid $3.13 million to settle EEOC charges that its screening policy discriminates against blacks by improperly using criminal checks. . . . 
See also this:
Alert to Federal contractors:  The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has added criminal background checks to its compliance checklist. 
On Jan. 29, 2013, OFCCP issued Directive 306, notifying federal contractors and subcontractors that use of criminal background checks to screen applicants for open positions may violate Title VII. OFCCP noted that because racial and ethnic minorities are arrested and convicted at a higher rate than whites, excluding job seekers based upon their criminal history may be discriminatory. 
OFCCP indicated its intent to follow the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records issued on April 25, 2012. In that Guidance, EEOC noted that use of criminal background checks can lead to: (1) disparate treatment (e.g., intentionally treating a white job applicant with a criminal conviction differently than a minority job applicant); or (2) disparate impact (e.g., a neutral policy of excluding job applicants with criminal histories, but such policy disproportionately screens out certain racial or ethnic groups). To avoid claims of disparate impact, an employer’s policy or practice of excluding applicants based upon criminal history must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.  
OFCCP stated it is aware of contractors posting job announcements that categorically exclude applicants with arrest or conviction records or require applicants to have a “clean” criminal record.  OFCCP believes these practices likely violate federal discrimination laws. . . . 
Yet, surely these same problems exist for background checks for people buying guns.  But Democrats don't seem to care that their rules are preventing poor blacks or Hispanics from getting guns for self defense. 

Note that this inconsistency doesn't go the other way.  I don't oppose background checks for guns because of the fact that people don't have IDs.  I oppose them because virtually every one who is denied is a false positive



Blogger sevenbrokenbricks said...

Thank you for bringing up the dangers of false positives. I want to add this.

Out of all the reasons why someone may "legitimately" be denied a firearm, be it felony history, mental illness, or watch list, why do we allow people with these conditions to do any of the other things that are even more dangerous? Drive cars? Operate machinery? Make chalupas? (watch out for E. Coli!)

7/29/2013 9:33 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home