Forward Front publishes criminal records of 1,502 candidates to aid voters

Taiwan Forward Front officially launched the website "2026 Council Candidate Criminal Case Records Publicly Revealed" this Tuesday. The platform presents criminal case data compiled for all 1,502 municipal council candidates participating in the nine-in-one local elections, based on publicly available judgments from the Supreme Court and various district courts. The database is primarily built on finalized court judgments, covering criminal cases in which defendants have been finally convicted, served sentences, or had cases revoked. It uses fields such as name, electoral district, and political affiliation for indexing, allowing voters to conduct independent searches prior to the election. Taiwan Forward pointed out that although current election bulletins only require candidates to self-declare specific types of criminal records, in practice, numerous cases are still not fully disclosed. Therefore, the organization called on relevant authorities to incorporate all finalized criminal records into the bulletins to enhance the transparency of electoral information.

The nine-in-one elections have entered their countdown phase since late last year, with political parties successively releasing candidate lists. The electoral landscape has become intricate due to the intertwining of local factions, ethnic structures, and policy issues. In past elections, instances where candidates concealed criminal records were exposed, sparking voter dissatisfaction and media attention, and even leading to some elected officials being forced to step down or resign. Cases of this nature have made the completeness of electoral information a social focus, prompting civil groups such as Taiwan Forward to accelerate the promotion of data disclosure. They hope that fact-based information will prevent voters from being misled by inaccurate or incomplete self-declarations when casting their ballots.

From a legal perspective, according to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, candidates are required to self-disclose "finalized criminal cases" and instances of "sentencing to imprisonment or heavier penalties" upon registration, which are then listed in the election bulletins. However, the law does not explicitly require the disclosure of circumstances such as "unexecuted suspended sentences" or "revoked judgments," resulting in the absence of certain criminal records in the bulletins. Scholars point out that using "public judgments" as the sole standard may still lead to the omission of revoked judgments or completed sentences, thereby affecting voters' assessment of a candidate's integrity. Taiwan Forward's database does not establish such exceptions, including all finalized judgments and arguing that "complete information" is the prerequisite for "democratic fairness."

Regarding political parties, the ruling and opposition parties have responded differently to this issue. A spokesperson for the ruling party stated that existing laws are already sufficient to safeguard voters' right to know, and that overly expanding the scope of disclosure might infringe upon personal privacy and the right to rehabilitation. In contrast, most opposition parties have called for enhanced information disclosure, maintaining that a candidate's past record is an important basis for voters to judge their credibility. Civil groups and monitoring bodies have pointed out that if election bulletins could simultaneously incorporate publicly available judgment data, it would neither violate the law nor enhance electoral transparency while reducing political controversies arising from post-election revelations.

The social significance of this move lies not only in enhancing the completeness of electoral information but also in addressing public expectations regarding the moral standards of politicians. With the accelerated flow of information, voters' scrutiny of candidates' backgrounds is no longer limited to media reports, as they can now verify information independently through platforms. If future election bulletins indeed incorporate all criminal records, it could rewrite the processes of candidate self-evaluation and party nomination, forcing political parties to conduct stricter screenings during the nomination stage to avoid political crises stemming from subsequent disclosures. Taiwan Forward's action also serves as a reminder to legislators and election administration authorities that information disclosure is not merely the execution of legal provisions, but also one of the self-correcting mechanisms of the democratic system.