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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Will they really though?