A second transgender candidate running for the majority Republican Ohio House could be disqualified from the ballot after omitting her former name on circulating petitions.

A second transgender candidate running for a seat in the Republican-majority Ohio House is at risk of being disqualified from the ballot after omitting her former name on circulating petitions.

The Mercer County Board of Elections is set to vote Thursday on whether Arienne Childrey, a Democrat from Auglaize County and one of four transgender individuals campaigning for the Legislature, is eligible to run after not disclosing her previous name, also known as her deadname, on her petition paperwork.

A little-used Ohio elections law, unfamiliar even to many state elections officials, mandates that candidates disclose any name changes in the last five years on their petitions paperwork, with exemptions for name changes due to marriage. But the law isn’t listed in the 33-page candidate requirement guide and there is no space on the petition paperwork to list any former names.

  • LetThereBeR0ck@lemmy.world
    161·
    10 months ago

    At the risk of being dogpiled, I’d like to try to have some discussion on this.

    Up front, I want to say that Ohio does a lot of dumb shit, trans rights are human rights, and weaponizing random laws against queer people is bullshit.

    It seems clear to me that:

    • There is a reasonable motivation for requiring reporting of recent name changes, and the exception for marriage is due to this being extremely common. The article states that this usually came up in the past when people wanted to run with a nickname rather than their given name.
    • Not stating this requirement on the form is stupid and bad.
    • This is compounded by the lack of a box for a former name, practically guaranteeing that this information is omitted.
    • All of this is a problem that should be fixed. The Republic governor has acknowledged this, according to a quote from the article.

    What isn’t clear to me is that this is selectively enforced against trans people. We only know about the cases where it has happened to trans people because those are the cases that are being reported on. It is not surprising that a cis person encountering a bureaucratic annoyance because they put the name they go by rather than their birth name on the form was not considered newsworthy.

    The vibe I get from this is that this is ragebait where the headline invites the reader to jump to conclusions while the contents of the article suggest that this is actually just a stupid case of the government being bad at making a form (something I have personally encountered a lot).

    I’m totally fine with being proven wrong, it wouldn’t be surprising in the slightest if there is malicious intent here. Is there evidence of selective enforcement here?

    • yaaaaayPancakes@lemmy.world
      93·
      10 months ago

      Yes there is evidence. Just a few days ago a third trans candidate in Ohio ran into the same problem and their board of elections overturned the rejection during their appeal.

      So this year you’ve had 3 trans candidates with the same problem. 2 upheld and 1 overturned during the appeals process.

    • merc
      31·
      10 months ago

      I agree. This seems like a prime example of a base rate fallacy.

      If all 4 transgender candidates ran afoul of this law, and none of the cisgender candidates did, it’s reasonable to think that it might be an anti-trans law. But, that ignores the base rate of name changes. Probably about 1% of non-trans people change their names, or use names different from their official names when submitting paperwork to get onto a ballot other than women who take a married name – but there’s an explicit carve-out for that because it’s so common. Probably about 99% of trans people change their names or use different names in that same situation. The rate of name changes between the two groups is massively different, so one group is going to encounter the issue much, much more often.

      In the past, when trans people simply didn’t try to run for office, this wouldn’t come up very often, so nobody paid much attention to the badly designed forms, etc. But, now a new group of people is starting to run for office, and this group encounters the problem nearly 100% of the time.

      And, while it’s also possible to think this might be an old law that’s now being weaponized by the other party against trans people, the article shows that they can’t do that:

      Earlier this month, the board received a protest to Childrey’s ballot certification from Mercer County Republican Party Chairman Robert J. Hibner. Because the ballot is for the upcoming March 19 primary, the board ruled Hibner’s protest invalid, as Hibner is from the opposing political party.

      There may still be prejudice at play, that trans candidates are under more scrutiny than a white cis male who wanted to go by Jimbo and not James. But, IMO incompetence / bugs in the system is probably a bigger part of the problem.