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.
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.
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.
Excellent take. I appreciate your taking the time to ponder and respond.
- 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”.
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.
Jim crow laws meet jane mockingbird laws.
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!
You forgot “gerrymandered the fuck out of this shithole state” but you’re spot on with regards to the rest.
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
Yeah I honestly skimmed the article before I posted and then saw that later. I edited after I noticed the mistake. Mea culpa.
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.
