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.

  • kool_newt@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    8 months ago

    You know how this is stopped? Good people need to replace those on the board of elections and other positions. This is what Republicans are doing (but with bad people) with great success, while those on the left or opting out, discouraging participation, and guaranteeing loss.

    For some reason, half of Lemmy is so confident that waiting (because doing anything more than reading and talking shit on LIBS! doesn’t actually occur) for a massive war between the East and West where hundreds of millions die and whole ecosystems are destroyed is easier and more likely to be successful than voting that they won’t even cast a ballot.

    Imagine thinking, “oh, voting won’t work, running for office won’t work, sorry my minority “friends”, I’m not gonna do something as difficult as grocery shopping for you because I’m certain what’s best for you and others like you is to suffer die while I wait for something that’s probably not going to happen.”

    To those who think voting or running for office won’t matter, ask yourself why Republicans fight so hard to limit voting and keep people like this candidate out of office?

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      8 months ago

      I do see a lot of justified Lib hate on here, but a lot of the complaints I have seen on Lemmy have the complainer claiming that they do begrudgingly vote for the dems, despite the criticism. I am not a fan of Biden at all, and I think there are tons of better candidates for the job, but I will still vote for him when I am forced to choose between that and Trump.

      Just because people criticize the Dems, doesn’t mean that they completely opt out of the voting process.

  • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    0·
    8 months ago

    Really sounds like we just found some old ass rule on the books and we’re using it to discriminate against trans people specifically.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      0·
      8 months ago

      I mean, it makes sense to me. Whether you are trans or not, I feel like people voting for you should be aware if you have changed your name so they can do some googling and make sure you didn’t get into any controversy or shenanigans before you changed your name.

      Sure they are specifically using this law to target this person because they disagree with their way of life, but it’s an old law and was passed for reasons before trans issues were even prevalent so the law itself isn’t transphobic.

        • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          8 months ago

          So as not to be accused of discriminating against women, who most frequently change name due to marriage.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            0·
            8 months ago

            But that doesn’t fulfill the stated reasoning i.e. the law makes sense because voters need to be able to research candidates. Do married women not have lives before marriage? Of course they do, but the law seems to treat their premarital life as completely separate.

            Here’s what I think: the law may not have been intended to exclude trans folk, but it’s definitely sexist, and the intersection of transphobia and sexism can’t be ignored.

            The law doesn’t make sense either, because name changes are public record anyway.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          8 months 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.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            0·
            8 months 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.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        The discussion around deadnaming and necessary or legal record keeping is kind of ongoing, but that’s not what’s happening here.

        The point of rules like this is to dissuade deceptive name changes but there’s no reason to view this particular case as deceptive. That’s why it’s going up for review and not disqualifying them immediately. Ideally, Congress would recognize this case doesn’t fit the spirit of that rule and both allow them to campaign while simultaneously setting a precedent or rewriting the rule to exclude deadnames.

        As to whether that’ll actually happen, and how fair and impartial the review will be, I think we can all guess it won’t be.

        It’s an understandable rule, but this is dishonest enforcement of it.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 months ago

          Yuo didn’t actually explain why marriage should be an exception, though. Why is it understandable? People do marry to get into certain families or escape baggage. It’s less common today but it happens.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    8 months ago

    I have a feeling she will be successful if they DQ her and she challenges it. Interacting with the bureaucracy of the state we are expected to do what reasonable people would do to comply with the rules and regs, such as follow the directions on the forms provided and follow instructions from officials.

    It’s unreasonable to expect a person to go digging for extra rules and extra regulations if there is no indication they might exist.

    If the form had a place for aliases or prior names, then it would be ok to disqualify anyone who left out a previous name. If there were instructions to provide a list of previous names in a separate document, it would be ok to disqualify. Hell, if the person handing over the document or the website you download it from specifically stated that all previous names shall be disclosed, it would be ok to disqualify.

    Most financial documents, for example, specifically ask for that. A lot of government identification applications (passports, drivers licenses, etc) ask for that. So when one encounters a form that doesn’t ask for that, there’s no reason to suspect that it’s necessary.

    A good lawyer will have her on the ballot no problem.