A number of trans candidates are running for Ohio’s House of Representatives, spurred on by the recent surge in anti-trans laws. Unfortunately, one has been blocked because she did not list her deadname, a requirement that is both discriminatory and not included in the Secretary of State’s handbook. Yikes! Hopefully she can bring a court case and prevail.
I really don’t think the disqualification has anything to do with the fact that the candidate is trans. People get disqualified from ballots for all sorts of minutia that they missed. Former names are important to know if someone is attempting to cover up a criminal conviction, etc.
Except this supposedly important rule isn’t mentioned anywhere.
According to local news outlet, Cleveland.com, Joy said that, while she would have been comfortable to abide by the law, it had not been mentioned in the 33-page candidate guide provided by the Ohio secretary of state’s office
Another article I read also said the petition form doesn’t even have a space to list former names. And that the other trans candidates in Ohio likewise didn’t list any deadnames, but were accepted anyway.
It has all the indications of a law only enforced when it suits the enforcer’s agenda.
And also, if being able to track people by having a list of previous names is so important, why are there exceptions? Someone could just as well hide behind their married name as any other name change.
Former names are important to know if someone is attempting to cover up a criminal conviction, etc.
Though probably less important in the current day where communication is so easy and ubiquitous. But yes, I think you’re right.
Edit: Given the topic we’re discussing, I should be crystal clear. Deadnames are none of the general public’s business, on the ballot or off.
Did she legally change her name?
Or is it a thing where it asks for all former aliases?
I’m not sure, but from the article:
While candidates who change their name after marriage are exempt from the law, there is no exception for transgender candidates who change their name as part of their transition.
So I’m guessing she legally changed her name, but didn’t fall under the marriage exception.
I bet they haven’t legally changed their name. If they had, the state having them use their birth name would be forcing them to break the law by providing a now invalid identity. If they hadn’t, it would be the other way around, the state would be allowing them to run under an invalid identity. Neither of which seem legally likely.
As the article says, they have to keep providing any former name for five years except when changed by marriage.
Makes sense. That’s the case for many things, though. Especially in the public where name changes are often used to “re-brand” for lack of a better term. Don’t really see the issue to be honest. Not really a fan of a person being exempt from the stuff everyone else has to do.
Should have been done long ago
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?Tin soldiers and Nixon’s comin’
Is it legal in that state to change one’s name? If yes - then fuck them.
And marriage? A woman taking a MAN’S name?? That makes them trans.!!! …O_o…? witches! witches! burn them with the books!
Judging by the article (it is not that clear), she might have not filled the lines where they asked to provide names used in the last 5 years. So, changing name legally has nothing to do with it. She might have thought “I did not use this name”, when legally she did, i.e. it was in her driver license.
Looky here! A brand new way for lawyers to make money. Fucking hell when will it end.
Any society is based on rules. Even anarchy.
My only guess is that some time in the past, someone did something to damage their reputation, changed their name, then got elected. A lot of weird laws come from one off cases like that. Obviously the law either needs to be updated to be more inclusive or done away with entirely.
