Summary#
HB 5827 would create a new law, the Standard Acceptance of Records from Fingerprint Vendors Act. Its apparent goal is to let covered government bodies accept fingerprint-based criminal history checks from any vendor that meets the bill’s certification requirements; it does not amend an existing Act.
- Starting January 1, 2027, a state agency, school district, or local government that requires a fingerprint check for certain employment, licence, or grant purposes must accept a check from any certified live scan vendor.
- A vendor must use Illinois State Police-certified equipment, hold a state licence, and complete fingerprint training conducted or authorized by the Illinois State Police.
- Once the bill becomes law, covered government bodies may not enter into, amend, or renew a vendor contract that bars or effectively bars them from accepting checks from other certified vendors.
- The bill is introduced and is not law. It would take effect immediately if enacted, although the acceptance duty would start on January 1, 2027.
What it means for you#
- People required to submit a fingerprint check: The agency, school district, or local government must accept a check from any vendor meeting the bill’s definition. This may offer more vendor options, but the bill does not say who chooses or pays for the vendor.
- State agencies, school districts, and local governments: They must accept qualifying checks for the employment, licence, and grant purposes listed in the bill. They also must avoid contracts that prevent acceptance of checks from other certified vendors.
- People who are not subject to one of those checks: The bill does not require a government body to start requiring checks, or change who must undergo them. It does not change what a criminal history check contains or how its results are used.
Money#
No publicly available information on costs.
- The bill requires covered government bodies to accept checks from any certified vendor, but gives no estimate of staffing, contract, or other costs.
- It does not say whether individuals or government bodies pay vendors, or set vendor fees.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not explain what “accept” requires in practice, such as how an agency should handle a check it considers incomplete or incorrect.
- It sets no process, timeline, or appeal for disputes about whether a check meets an agency’s requirements.
- It does not say how agencies should choose among vendors, or whether they may impose conditions that do not effectively block checks from other certified vendors.
- The bill does not describe oversight or enforcement if a government body fails to accept a qualifying check.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that people would not be limited to a vendor selected through an exclusive government contract, as long as another vendor meets the state’s equipment, licensing, and training requirements.
- The restriction on blocking contracts could give agencies more flexibility to accept checks from certified vendors.
- The bill keeps the requirement for a fingerprint check in the hands of the government body; it changes which vendors’ checks must be accepted, not whether checks are required.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill does not set common rules for deciding whether a check from another certified vendor is complete and usable.
- The requirement to accept checks from any certified vendor could require agencies to handle different vendor processes, but the bill provides no implementation details or cost estimate.
- It is unclear how agencies should resolve a conflict between their existing procedures or contracts and the new acceptance duty.