For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.
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
You don’t get to change your first name my marriage, and generally, records are not sealed so people can find out their maiden name. Changing your name via court order can be sealed and often involves changing both first and last names.
“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.
I’m afraid that’s a pretty poor argument. It’s not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn’t just using a old name. For a lot of people, it’s kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it’s still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don’t see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn’t be applied at all (like it hasn’t been applied in decades to the extent that it isn’t even on the official form).
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.
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.
Yikes - that really highlights the US’s priorities…
If you’re a felon, you can’t represent yourself, but if you’re a felon with money, you can represent everyone.
No taxation without representation, and no slavery… but felons aren’t real people.
Private companies profit from confining people as cheaply as possible and exploiting their slave labour - all above board.
The land of the free has nearly a quarter of the world’s prison population… but only ~4% of the world’s people.
Leonard Peltier, for example, has run for president from prison.
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.
Not religious in origin, but the people who propose using it as exclusions to laws think so.
No it isn’t. Religion usurped it and claim they invented it but it’s older than that
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.
Mine did, but that’s mostly because she didn’t change it back after the divorce from her ex was finalized because she figured we were headed in that general direction and it would save her some paperwork.
I made a point of telling her it was up to her, and that things like both of us hyphenating her maiden name and my name were on the table if she wanted, but she wanted to take my name and I’m fine with that.
I figured the odds are that it started as patriarchal bullshit in the most literal sense. Less claiming ownership of the woman like you are thinking and more claiming ownership of the children.
But I suspect that a lot of cultural institutions that are considered patriarchal bullshit had their origins in trying to square the circle of wanting men to be materially responsible for their offspring and also paternity being non-certain with no obvious solution using bronze age technology. So you legally and culturally tie man and woman together, make any of their offspring legally his and bear his name, and leave it to him to make sure no other man is fathering children with her.
Compare to groups like the Mosuo where there are no permanent pair bonds, but also men aren’t materially responsible for their offspring or raising them - children belong to their mother’s family, only. Women are still supposed to know who fathered their children, but I suspect you’ll never get away from that as a norm just to avoid half siblings breeding.
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.
Marriage requires a license and an officiant. Name change often requires a hearing and publication in a newspaper. So, no, you’re wrong.
Because it has nothing to do with that. If the goal was to inform the public there would not be an easy escape clause
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.
So it just ends up being disproportionately targeted at transgender people then.
Sorry, I assumed it was like the TSA PreCheck which requires every name change a woman has gone through during their entire life.
Let’s call this what it is: erecting a humiliating barrier in front of someone to prevent them from running for office
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.
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.
If it’s not on the form, it shouldn’t be considered a requirement. I would be suing.
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.
