• @abbotsbury
    link
    2311 months ago

    Yeah, this is an interesting case, the public has a legitimate interest to know the previous identity of a candidate, and the candidate has a legitimate interest in disassociating with their previous identity.

    Thankfully Americans are known to approach such cases with compassion and nuance, surely.

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      411 months ago

      *prior identity of someone who didn’t change their name when married apparently. Just anyone who changed their name legally for any other reason, like going back to their maiden name, being transgender, or wanting to change their name for any other number of reasons.

    • @ABCDE
      link
      011 months ago

      Are people made aware of the previous identity, or is it just for security’s sake in the application process?

      • @abbotsbury
        link
        211 months ago

        I’m not sure how it works in Ohio, but my state has a similar thing where a candidate will have their previous name listed underneath in parenthesis.

        • @ABCDE
          link
          111 months ago

          That could be interpreted as having to use your name (even if it’s under the guise of disclosing it, so the public cannot be misled), which seems like a hugely contentious issue with regards to transpeople.

          • @abbotsbury
            link
            411 months ago

            Plus, depending on the names, it’s tantamount to labeling their minority status on the ballot.

            • @ABCDE
              link
              311 months ago

              Considering the absolute garbage posts which are pushed on Facebook, and the comments underneath them, it’s very obvious that there are so many people behind the times in terms of attitudes towards all sorts of minorities, highlighting these aspects could easily result in harm towards them and their families.