201

Transgender woman running for Ohio House disqualified for not disclosing deadname (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A transgender woman running for an Ohio House seat has been disqualified for failing to disclose her former name on petitions circulated to voters, in violation of a seldom-enforced state law.

Local election officials informed Vanessa Joy, who hoped to run as a Democrat for Ohio House District 50, that she was not eligible to do so, despite having collected the signatures necessary to run.

Joy sought to run in a firmly Republican district covering Stark County, just south of Akron.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 115 points 10 months ago

To clarify:

It's an old ass law that's not enforced.

To the point where the petition she had to use didn't have space for it, and the 33 page guide for candidates has no mention of it.

The other article I read on this said they couldn't find anyone that knew about this or candidate that included a prior name.

It's not like she just refuses to follow the rule, literally no one knew about it

That other article mentions her step father is a vical anti-lgbt Republican in Ohio, pretty safe bet he researched weird rules to keep someone from running.

Not just because he doesn't want her to win, but because other Republicans will use it in the primary against him.

If it was a random person, they would have done it to other trans candidates as well.

[-] QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

That's pretty messed up if there isn't a valid way to disclose it on the official paperwork.

One of the legitimate reasons I can see for this law would be cases where someone changed their name to be similar, or the same, as someone else who is much more likely to win.

So if someone changed their name to Joe Biden recently, I would absolutely want it disclosed that they had done so.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

One of the legitimate reasons I can see for this law would be cases where someone changed their name to be similar, or the same, as someone else who is much more likely to win.

Like the sherriffs Roy Tillman from Fargo?

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Did Ted Cruz have to put his birth name (Rafael) on ballots?

[-] squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

I don't think Ohio is in Texas.

[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

It’s all Ohio. Always has been.

[-] Municipal0379@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I don’t think Ohio is in Texas.

BIG if true!!

[-] PwnTra1n@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Not as big as if Ohio was in Texas. It’s the rule.

[-] JWBananas@startrek.website 4 points 10 months ago

America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everywhere else is Cleveland.

[-] betz24@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 10 months ago

Would have picked Los Angeles over New Orleans

[-] JWBananas@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago

Take it up with Tennessee Williams.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 18 points 10 months ago

How in the heck does this work for someone who had their name changed for any other reason? Heck, what about married people who took their partner's last name?

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 23 points 10 months ago

Name changes by marriage are specifically exempted... because this kind of disclosure is totally unnecessary and serves no purpose.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 21 points 10 months ago

As I noticed literally right above your comment:

If the reason for this law is to not have someone change their name to hide some negative past from voters, a marriage name change is still just as concealing. Sally Smith to Sally Michaels when there are thousands of Sally's out there is just as much hiding as anything else.

[-] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago

All retroactively disqualified!! Ohio is an autonomous zone now with no leaders.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 13 points 10 months ago

They claim in the article an exception for marriage name changes, which is nonsense. If the reason for this law is to not have someone change their name to hide some negative past from voters, a marriage name change is still just as concealing. Sally Smith to Sally Michaels when there are thousands of Sally's out there is just as much hiding as anything else.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 6 points 10 months ago

This is actually a really interesting point I hadn’t thought about, would people in witness protection or those who had to change their name to hide from dangerous people be disqualified?

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

I don't think people in witness protection want the publicity of running for office? On the other hand, Donald "My properties are both over and undervalued" Trump ran for president, so maybe?

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

Didn't read the article, I take it?

[-] Veedem@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Why would there be ANY exceptions? I wouldn’t have a problem with it as long as everyone had to follow the same rule. Putting exceptions just seems silly.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

You know why.

[-] autotldr 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A transgender woman running for an Ohio House seat has been disqualified for failing to disclose her former name on petitions circulated to voters, in violation of a seldom-enforced state law.

Officials said Joy violated a little-known Ohio law requiring candidates for public office to list any name changes over the previous five years on their signature petitions.

Joy, who has legally changed her name and her birth certificate, told News 5 Cleveland and the Ohio Capital Journal on Wednesday she had not been aware of the law before being removed from the ballot.

Joy said that, as a transgender woman, she should not be required by law or expected to publicly disclose her deadname, which is the name she used before transitioning.

The law’s enforcement also comes at a pivotal time for transgender people in Ohio, as the state legislature gears up to override Gov.

The legislation would ban minors from obtaining gender-affirming health care and prevent transgender athletes from competing on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

The original article contains 440 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago

I totally get not wanting to disclose your deadname where a ton of conservative assholes will get ahold of it, but you probably should still have to report any other names you've gone by to get into public office.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 19 points 10 months ago

Why? Many of the cisgendered people don't, so why should she?

[-] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Anyone should have to to get into public office imo, not just her.

She's definitely not who I'd start enforcing that rule on tbf, but everyone should have to I think.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

Why, though? You have a solution in search of a problem here.

No deception is occuring in a legal name change. No identity is being hidden.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

The rule is very old and never enforced. She's the first.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the important question. I have no sympathy for the candidate not wanting to disclose the previous name - just because some people might react negatively doesn’t mean they get to hide their past

….. assuming it’s equally applied. If it’s true that other are not held to the same standard, that the requirement wasn’t communicated or known, or there is no chance to fix it before the election, that’s BS

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Again, who's hiding? Legal name changes are public records. No one is hiding. You have a solution in search of a problem.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I would never seek to justify every law. I’m sure many are bogus.

However if it only applies to one person, or is some ancient thing long forgotten brought back for one person, it is clearly discriminatory and should be invalid, regardless of whether it had any merit to begin with

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

A law that cannot be justified is definitionally unjust.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024

201 points (91.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers

3211 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News