Transgender woman is disqualified from Ohio House race for not using her former name

For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.
- I read about this from Erin Reed. She said that there was 1) no place on the rules of the petition that said she had to list it and 2) no place to write it in on the petition
- It’s also a law that’s been on the books years, and last modified in 1995. It’s a common sense law. Candidates should not be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change. It has nothing to do with trans issues or dead names.
  
  Candidates should be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change.
  unfortunate typo
  
  Well, they can apparently get married to hide their past indiscretions.
  
  And yet getting married and changing your name without disclosure is fine.
- "Recent" being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don't want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
  
  Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
  You would know if you would read the article.
  
  or, hear me out. if you're running for political office, you deal with such things like an adult. deadname or not, this person would face MUCH more harsh situations in office than having to put a name you don't go by anymore.
- As if the transphobes only want to hear their deadnames to stroke their egos.
- Good clarification. The title is still correct though. They still want her to use her prior name, just not exclusively so.
  
  Disclose, not use. She can use her name as her real name and political persona

The law makes sense. If someone is a convicted felon, changes their name to avoid the inevitable Google searches, and decides to run for office, that former name absolutely should be disclosed.
What's weird here is the limit of "past 5 years" and "excluding marriage."
So totally cool for a felon to change their name MORE than 5 years ago, or, simply get married, no disclosure required.
So what even is the purpose of the law?
- So, what you're saying is... the law actually doesn't make sense. It should be that if they were a convicted felon, then that should be disclosed along with their old name. All of the other conditions here seem unnecessary unless we want to include name changes in general, which then they need to add a space on the actual form to include this.
- Looking at you Ted Cruz... the zodiac killer
  
  Whos that? Do you mean Texas politician Rafael Cruz?
- I think it would make more sense if you either
  a) couldn't change your name as a convicted felon
  b) your new name would be updated in the records maybe?
- That you're not a recently convicted felon, I suppose.
- Doesn't being a convicted felon disqualify you from running in any case - or is that just voting?
  
  Voting, not running, and not even always voting. It varies state by state.

Ohio law requires people running for political office who have changed their name within the last five years to include their former names on candidacy petitions.
That's not entirely unreasonable, but It seems like that's the sort of thing they should make clear in the paperwork when you file a candidacy petition. "Have you legally changed your name in the last 5 years for any reason other than marriage?"
- Just curious. Why make an exception for marriage? If the intention is so people can identify you if they recently knew you by your previous name, that seems even more pertinent.
  
  Religious BS, probably. Marriage is religious in origin.
  
  The answer is that there shouldn't be. And a woman changing her name to match her husband's is archaic patriarchal bullshit. I'm glad my wife decided not to do that.
  
  I’m just spit-balling here, but I assume the reason for requiring someone to disclose a recent name change is so that you don’t have someone trying to run under a new name for reasons of deception. “What’s that? Oh no, it’s okay, I know that Donald Trump can’t be on the ballot, but my name is Ronald Krump. Common mistake.”
  In most jurisdictions you can legally change your name when you get married without paying a fee or filing any other paperwork (don’t ask me if that applies to men, that’s a whole other archaic bit of bullshit). It’s therefore also the most common reason for someone to change their name, and I guess they just figured nobody would bother getting married just so they could get on a ballot with a different name.
  
  I assume because marriage requires a lot of documentation and an official process, whereas my name change only required my friends to sign a document I made.
  
  I would guess it is for establishing that you meet residency requirements to be eligible to run for office and don't have a criminal history that would disqualify you.
  
  Because it has nothing to do with that. If the goal was to inform the public there would not be an easy escape clause
  
  They probably wouldn’t make an exception for marriage actually
  
  You can find a name change on the marriage license. So perhaps you look up the name of the person on the marriage license and find the previous name.
- Yeah it feels very much like a situation where a cis person with a good reason to have changed their name may have gotten a heads up instead of a disqualification
- Ah yes, a law that sounds equal but mostly applies to women in practice due to who is most likely to change their name.
  
  Changing name due to marriage is specifically excluded from this requirement, likely due to the disproportionate effect on women.

Let's call this what it is: erecting a humiliating barrier in front of someone to prevent them from running for office
- That may be the effect but when was the law enacted? Unless it was the last 3 years I can't imagine this was the intent, nobody made trans issues a big deal until the right was truly sure they couldn't punch down on gay people anymore.
- I was so confused for a moment, until I noticed the "race" in the title was referring to an election.

I'm not disputing the rules, they just seem so damn archaic at this point. The digital era made a lot of this redundant. Got my social? The government knows who I am. Got my current ID? The government knows who I am.
- Yeah who do they think changed her name? It’s in the public record because a judge did it
- But if it's on the form and required, isn't it the candidates fault for not following procedure? They just blatantly didn't follow the rules. You shouldn't complain about rules after you break them and if you know about them in advance.
  
  It wasn't on the form and she didn't know about it in advance.
- If this person can't follow the law/rules on the APPLICATION, why would they be trusted to follow the rules when/if they are elected to office.
  
  Like any politician follows the rules. Lol

Meanwhile Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley...

Isn’t listing your former legal names kind of common for just about anything government related? If she got married and took her spouse’s last name she’s be in the same boat. No?
Also, is there no way to rectify a stupid clerical error?
- Not really. I changed my name in Ohio about 5 years ago when I transitioned and it hasn’t really come up since. I would’ve made the same mistake since this is the name I’ve used exclusively for years except when clarifying about my past. I occasionally have to bring out my name change paperwork solely because I never got around to editing my birth certificate but these days my passport is updated so I just have to use that to prove citizenship.
  The other big reason I wouldn’t think to disclose is because this state has mandatory publication of non-marital name changes. In order to change my name I had to pay a newspaper to announce it so it’s in the public record beyond court records. I would have assumed that counted as sufficient declaration to the state that my name has been changed
  
  In order to change my name I had to pay a newspaper to announce it so it’s in the public record beyond court records.
  What was your reaction to being told that?
- Changing names for marriage is actually excluded from the law, but your point still stands. Listing recent alternate names/aliases is extremely common
- They specifically state marriage has an exception.
- Your previous legal person sort of stops existing and a new legal person walks away. You’re obviously still responsible for everything but it may not be so easy ten years later for people to ever put the two together. If you had bad credit you may find that you suddenly have a clean slate.

I'd be in favor of an exception for trans people transitioning just like there's an exception for people who just got married but it sounds like the real problem is nobody told her the requirements.

US Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists, what else is new.

It's a good thing Nimarata doesn't live in Ohio amirite!

If you want to run for office, its your duty to understand what you are required to file. Find a lawyer who specializes in this, perhaps, or work with your local party office? Not the greatest initial performance for someone looking to serve in office.
- Why are you downvoted lmao?
  Edit: Apparently she did try to follow everything but she found no mention of the rules even after consulting professionals and experts. So 0 fault of her.

Another victory for the followers of Jesus

Ignorance of the law doesn't give you freedom from the law. Too bad, so sad. Try again next time.
- FontMasterFlex, you're clearly missing the point. It's an unjust law that exists to keep people like her out of office. It's another Christian right wing - sorry, I mean government - tactic to keep the other team from being allowed to play.
  It's the same as the laws that were passed requiring abortion clinics to have 18 ft wide hallways. "We're not banning abortion! We're just concerned about the rights of all the 18'+ women seeking treatment!"
  Fuck unjust laws that keep people from getting into positions to overturn unjust laws.