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.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    233·
    9 months ago

    I feel like @derphurr has pretty strong opinions on this for whatever reason. I’m on my phone during my lunch break, so I’m not gonna look into the matter to decide if they’re right. But the emotional responses make me pause and question whether they’re (the responses) rational. It’s a troubling vibe.

      • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.socialOP
        141·
        9 months ago

        I have that person blocked now because…JFC…but directly from the article:

        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.

        So it seems rather selective.

    • derphurr@lemmy.world
      441·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
        161·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        12·
        9 months ago

        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.