Ohio transgender candidate disqualified for only including legal name, not former name, on petitions - Ohio Capital Journal
ohiocapitaljournal.com
A transgender candidate for the Ohio House has been disqualified because she only circulated petitions with her legal name, instead of her former name — and it has put multiple other LGBTQ+ candidates in flux.

Ohio actually has a law that says if you legally change your name within the last 5 years, it has to be on the petition. In the article it mentions that there is no place for a previous name (dead name in this instance) on the petition, and the Secretary of State’s candidate guide doesn’t mention this requirement at all.

Apparently other trans candidates had their petitions accepted with no problem.

  • @derphurr
    -88•9 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
      65•9 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
        -81•9 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
          49•9 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.

          • @[email protected]
            17•9 months ago

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

    • BadEngineering
      29•9 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
      14•9 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.

      • @derphurr
        -6•9 months ago

        Lol. Go back to reddit or whatever safespace you need. Angry is calling out false narrative? Providing links to the law. There is no proof anyone else had name change (5 yrs prior) and got elected and are holding office. No one is singled out.

        Now it does suck for any trans politicians who might have to be on ballot in Ohio with both names, but I don’t think this was the intention in 1995.

        • @stoly
          4•9 months ago

          I think you just proved my statement.