A second transgender candidate running for the majority Republican Ohio House could be disqualified from the ballot after omitting her former name on circulating petitions.

A second transgender candidate running for a seat in the Republican-majority Ohio House is at risk of being disqualified from the ballot after omitting her former name on circulating petitions.

The Mercer County Board of Elections is set to vote Thursday on whether Arienne Childrey, a Democrat from Auglaize County and one of four transgender individuals campaigning for the Legislature, is eligible to run after not disclosing her previous name, also known as her deadname, on her petition paperwork.

A little-used Ohio elections law, unfamiliar even to many state elections officials, mandates that candidates disclose any name changes in the last five years on their petitions paperwork, with exemptions for name changes due to marriage. But the law isn’t listed in the 33-page candidate requirement guide and there is no space on the petition paperwork to list any former names.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.worldEnglish
    258·
    1 year ago

    Because an exception to that was taken into account long before now, and trans people were not.

    But just because the people that drafted this law didn’t write out an exception for deadnames doesn’t mean it’s inherently transphobic. This was hardly a major topic in the public discourse when these laws were made.

    Again, a law that requires voters have transparency is a good thing overall. It needs updated, yes, but the problem here is how it’s being used as a tool to abuse. The law is to prevent fraud, but no fraud is being committed.

    • Baahb@lemmy.world
      342·
      1 year ago

      The dead name requirement isn’t the issue. There is no way to provide that info, the requirement to provide tha info isn’t documented, and they are attempting to disqualify her over it. The actual fuck?

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        15·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, if this was a genuine mistake they’d present opportunities to rectify it and try to ensure it doesn’t happen in the future. The law probably wasn’t meant specifically to hurt trans people but the implementation clearly is.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      197·
      1 year ago

      That didn’t actually answer my question.

      The poster says that this law makes sense because voters need to be able to research their candidates. The exception for marriage contradicts that logic - do we not need to research married people? I want to see how they square that circle is all.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        48·
        1 year ago

        It’s more that it’s trying to catch people who’ve changed their names for political purposes.

        People who got married and changed their name notionally didn’t do so for political purposes, and are therefore excluded from having to report.

        It’s not that it’s to provide blanket history on every candidate for research purposes. It’s a catch to ferret out those who would abuse the name change process to avoid accountability. This gives the public the ability to know if that is occuring.

    • manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
      2·
      1 year ago

      me on my way to do crimes before getting married so I dont have to declare my name change when running for congress or whatever

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      just because the people that drafted this law didn’t write out an exception for deadnames doesn’t mean it’s inherently transphobic.

      That’s exactly what it makes it.