Ohio transgender candidate disqualified for only including legal name, not former name, on petitions : ohio

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 82 points 8 months ago

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 50 points 8 months ago

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

[+] derphurr@lemmy.world -88 points 8 months ago

It's very plain easy to understand law

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3513.271

You are a liar saying only this one person is targeted. There is no one else that has done this without including both names.

Any person who has been elected under the person's changed name, without submission of the person's former name, shall be immediately suspended from the office and the office declared vacated, and shall be liable to the state for any salary the person has received while holding such office.

Let me know who, because they will owe Ohio taxpayers quite a sum.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 62 points 8 months ago

From the article you're commenting on:

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

From my comment your replying to:

The form doesn’t even have a place for it…

And the 33 page guide doesn’t mention it…

[+] derphurr@lemmy.world -80 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Lies. Stop fucking lying. Google "ohio candidate petition". All the Ohio SoS links

https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/elections/directives/2019/eom_12-2019/eom_ch11_2019-12-18.pdf

Page 2

any person desiring to become a candidate for public office has had a change of name within five years immediately preceding the filing of the person’s declaration of candidacy, the person’s declaration of candidacy and petition shall both contain, immediately following the person’s present name, the person’s former names.(6) This does not apply to a name change due to marriage.(7)

Any other candidates that didn't include legal name change with 5 years, if elected, will be removed from office. (1)

You don't need a special place on form, the law is very clear. The petition and declaration of candidacy shall contain both names where it says name.

(Edit) you are correct the 33 page booklet does not include reference to 3513.271. But the actually petition forms do other than the literal 2 page petition.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago

I don't think me explaining again will help, but I do know one way to never get roped into this exchange again.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 18 points 8 months ago

Seeing "There is no record of this comment" after this loser tries to spread more bullshit somewhere else will feel so liberating

[-] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago

Die, transphobe fuck

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago

Fucking love it.

Only response these shit heaps should get other than violence.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

You're scum.

[-] BadEngineering@kbin.social 30 points 8 months ago

Seeing how you immediately suspect someone of lying rather than simply misunderstanding something speaks volumes to the the objective fact that you are a moron.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

The anger in your response and the fact that you feel the need to literally insult someone indicates that you feel very insecure on this subject and don't have arguments to back up your position.

[-] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

Illiterate dumbass

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Jump off a cliff.

[-] Kalysta@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago

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 20 points 8 months ago

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 18 points 8 months ago

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 2 points 8 months ago

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

[-] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Yeah he's got some feelings

[-] stinerman@midwest.social 13 points 8 months 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.

[+] derphurr@lemmy.world -37 points 8 months ago

It didn't post any opinions. I posted links to the law and Ohio SoS website that describes how you include two names. And I stated it's not selective, because even if other candidates didn't include two names, if elected they will be removed from office.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago

Well, you stated it, end of discussion!

Except wait, no.

The other candidates were certified. This candidate was not. That is selective. I have stated it.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

There is a difference between selective enforcement and incomplete enforcement. The drunk police officer not being asked to do a breathalyzer test after an accident causing death is selective enforcement. Uncle Bob driving home drunk without incident not being arrested is incomplete enforcement.

I don't claim to know the intent or knowledge of the people who did and didn't enforce this requirement, and I can see where this would be more troubling for a trans person than it would be for some unfortunate soul whose parents decided to name their child Daisy Duke after the show was aired, but this situation brings a number of things to light.

This requirement isn't completely unreasonable, though. It would be reasonable to have a requirement like this so people can't hide their notoriety in what is to some degree a popularity contest. And if the previous name is posted on ballots, this would mean the voting information would be different had the forms been filled out correctly (I don't know if this is a requirement in Ohio, and I can't be bothered to find out for a place where I don't expect I'll ever have a right to vote). If she was barred from running again because of this, this would be particularly egregious, and could also give an advantage to candidates with deeper pockets.

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 15 points 8 months ago

The fact that you begin almost every post by aggressively calling people liars is half of your problem. You're not simply correcting a misconception or misunderstanding, you're also being a massive dick for no reason. You lost any claim to impartiality when you started. Fucking. Posting. Like. This.

So yeah, you absolutely come across as someone with an agenda.

[-] Nachorella 12 points 8 months ago

Even if you're not 'stating opinions' you seem to feel strongly about this. I think the law should be interpreted reasonably and In this case I think it's fairly obvious there wasn't any attempt to deceive anyone, the paperwork just wasn't very clear on the requirements. It's also a very simple problem to solve.

You appear to want to uphold the law in this particular instance, though, which is what makes you come off as a transphobe. Just trying to explain the negative reactions you're (rightfully) getting if you are genuinely confused.

[-] mrcleanup@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Will they really though?

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

You're pathetic.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

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

[-] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

Jim crow laws meet jane mockingbird laws.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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 8 months ago

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 8 months 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 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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 8 months 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 -12 points 8 months ago

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 10 points 8 months 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.