this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
250 points (93.1% liked)

Ohio

1129 readers
11 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
seahorse@midwest.social
250
Ohio transgender candidate disqualified for only including legal name, not former name, on petitions (ohiocapitaljournal.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by stinerman@midwest.social to c/ohio@midwest.social
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Ohio actually has a law that says if you legally change your name within the last 5 years, it has to be on the petition. In the article it mentions that there is no place for a previous name (dead name in this instance) on the petition, and the Secretary of State’s candidate guide doesn’t mention this requirement at all.

Apparently other trans candidates had their petitions accepted with no problem.

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 75 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not only is there nowhere to put it on the petition, but it isn’t included in the secretary of state’s 2024 candidate guide. It hasn’t been on any candidate guides in recent years.

WEWS/OCJ reached out to the office with numerous clarifying questions, like why the name change isn’t included in the 33-page guide, but did not hear back.

So. They couldn't find anyone else that had to do it, even other candidates who transitioned...

The form doesn't even have a place for it...

And the 33 page guide doesn't mention it...

So why is it an issue here?

I feel like this part is the real reason:

Joy is also the stepdaughter of state Rep. Bill Roemer (R-Richfield), but the two do not have a relationship and have never met. Although the Republican hasn’t sponsored or cosponsored legislation impacting the trans community, he has voted in favor of legislation banning trans youth from having gender-affirming care and participating in athletics. He is one of the Republicans she wants to fight back against.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 46 points 2 years ago

It's an issue because some asshat at her local county board of elections wanted to make an example of her.

[–] Kalysta@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I hope she does appeal this. Considering it is selectively enforced it looks very descriminatory. Especially with Ohio being so very anti-trans right now.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I feel like @derphurr has pretty strong opinions on this for whatever reason. I’m on my phone during my lunch break, so I’m not gonna look into the matter to decide if they’re right. But the emotional responses make me pause and question whether they’re (the responses) rational. It’s a troubling vibe.

[–] skweetis@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What escapes dickwads like derphurr is that the law is not the same as justice. People aren't arguing that the law doesn't require the disclosure. They are arguing that this case is different because it's a person who transitioned and that being required to out oneself as trans in order to run for office is a very different requirement than being forced to reveal your old name. The law is not just, and of course it was written without any consideration of trans people - much like the 2nd amendment was written without the remotest concept of what a single person can do to an elementary school with an AR-15. It's perfectly possible to argue that the law should be enforced until it is changed while acknowledging that it's unfair. But that would require empathy. And not being an asshole.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

Excellent take. I appreciate your taking the time to ponder and respond.

[–] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah he's got some feelings

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago

I have that person blocked now because...JFC...but directly from the article:

At least two of the other trans candidates running also didn’t know the law, and didn’t include their dead names, but both were certified by their boards.

So it seems rather selective.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wonder how Nikki Nimrod Haley’s name would appear on ballot in Ohio primaries

[–] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

Jim crow laws meet jane mockingbird laws.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

There is an exception that says the law doesn’t apply to marriage name changes, but since it isn’t well-known, WEWS/OCJ checked with dozens of lawmakers anyway. WEWS/OCJ asked married lawmakers if they had any issues when they changed their names, but all had been married for longer than five years.

Leaving out the policy in the instructions is bullshit, but the article mentions the exception for marriage changes.

edit: this is answering a question OP originally had on the post

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah I honestly skimmed the article before I posted and then saw that later. I edited after I noticed the mistake. Mea culpa.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago

No worries, I just had to throw that edit on there so I didn’t get brigaded by people mad at me for bringing it up for no apparent reason.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Thank God they've prevented her running. Imagine if she'd won!

It would have caused rampant inflation, fundamentally undermined democracy, accelerated the timeline of the climate apocalypse, increased school shootings, made health insurance prohibitively expensive, made the US have a poorly performing healthcare system despite outspending other developed countries up to 4 times, caused rampant immigration, and cost tens of thousands of jobs.

Glad Ohio has it's priorities in order!

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago

You forgot “gerrymandered the fuck out of this shithole state” but you’re spot on with regards to the rest.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  • Trans person gets denied election rights for a minor bureaucratic mistake on the form.
  • Everyone: "this is so unfair."
  • Some commenter: "it seems the law is just being strictly followed in this case, here's a link to the law."
  • Everyone: "You're so transphobic, get cancelled"
  • Another random commenter: "I now blocked them".
[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I mean defending blatant transphobia is inherently transphobic.

Yeah you can argue that the law is just being followed but the point is it's only being followed because the person is trans.