The law makes sense. If someone is a convicted felon, changes their name to avoid the inevitable Google searches, and decides to run for office, that former name absolutely should be disclosed.
What’s weird here is the limit of “past 5 years” and “excluding marriage.”
So totally cool for a felon to change their name MORE than 5 years ago, or, simply get married, no disclosure required.
So what even is the purpose of the law?
So, what you’re saying is… the law actually doesn’t make sense. It should be that if they were a convicted felon, then that should be disclosed along with their old name. All of the other conditions here seem unnecessary unless we want to include name changes in general, which then they need to add a space on the actual form to include this.
Looking at you Ted Cruz… the zodiac killer
Whos that? Do you mean Texas politician Rafael Cruz?
Nimarata Randhawa Haley must be shitting her pants…
I think it would make more sense if you either
a) couldn’t change your name as a convicted felon
b) your new name would be updated in the records maybe?
That you’re not a recently convicted felon, I suppose.
Doesn’t being a convicted felon disqualify you from running in any case - or is that just voting?
Voting, not running, and not even always voting. It varies state by state.
Yikes - that really highlights the US’s priorities…
If you’re a felon, you can’t represent yourself, but if you’re a felon with money, you can represent everyone.
No taxation without representation, and no slavery… but felons aren’t real people.
Private companies profit from confining people as cheaply as possible and exploiting their slave labour - all above board.
The land of the free has nearly a quarter of the world’s prison population… but only ~4% of the world’s people.
To be clear, there is no US policy on this, each state has their own rules.
Leonard Peltier, for example, has run for president from prison.
For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.
I read about this from Erin Reed. She said that there was 1) no place on the rules of the petition that said she had to list it and 2) no place to write it in on the petition
It’s also a law that’s been on the books years, and last modified in 1995. It’s a common sense law. Candidates should not be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change. It has nothing to do with trans issues or dead names.
Well, they can apparently get married to hide their past indiscretions.
You don’t get to change your first name my marriage, and generally, records are not sealed so people can find out their maiden name. Changing your name via court order can be sealed and often involves changing both first and last names.
shh. they don’t allow common sense on Lemmy. an unfortunate holdover from reddit.
Come on! You can do it better than reddit. Dont be a douchebag and just complain. Make this environment better and friendlier.
If you think someone is just wrong. Let him be, dont comment like this. Do it better than reddit.
Their husbands will sort them out. /s
And yet getting married and changing your name without disclosure is fine.
Removed by mod
She also directly said she agrees with the law.
People are framing this as some anti-trans law, when that has nothing to do with the original law. In 1995, 99.9% of people had no idea what a deadname is.
“Recent” being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don’t want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
You would know if you would read the article.
I was being rhetorical- I know that they aren’t applying it to married people. But why? Wouldn’t the same reasoning hold, that you could use it to defraud? If not, why wouldn’t changing your name to transition not be in the same category of life event as marriage?
or, hear me out. if you’re running for political office, you deal with such things like an adult. deadname or not, this person would face MUCH more harsh situations in office than having to put a name you don’t go by anymore.
I’m afraid that’s a pretty poor argument. It’s not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn’t just using a old name. For a lot of people, it’s kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it’s still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don’t see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn’t be applied at all (like it hasn’t been applied in decades to the extent that it isn’t even on the official form).
Removed by mod
that it has nothing to do with people that think they are something they are not
Thanks for the explicit transphobia, I’m not interested in continuing this conversation either. Trans people are a normal part of life and until you come to terms with that, you should keep their names out of your mouth.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Loads of scammers change only their last names, so I don’t really buy that it’s that different. They should require names changed by marriage too if they want the purpose of this to be for tricking the public. If not, then I question how necessary it is in the first place. It’s not a big deal for Cis folks, but it is for Trans folks, so it should be reconsidered.
As if the transphobes only want to hear their deadnames to stroke their egos.
Ohio law requires people running for political office who have changed their name within the last five years to include their former names on candidacy petitions.
That’s not entirely unreasonable, but It seems like that’s the sort of thing they should make clear in the paperwork when you file a candidacy petition. “Have you legally changed your name in the last 5 years for any reason other than marriage?”
Yeah it feels very much like a situation where a cis person with a good reason to have changed their name may have gotten a heads up instead of a disqualification
Ah yes, a law that sounds equal but mostly applies to women in practice due to who is most likely to change their name.
Let’s call this what it is: erecting a humiliating barrier in front of someone to prevent them from running for office
That may be the effect but when was the law enacted? Unless it was the last 3 years I can’t imagine this was the intent, nobody made trans issues a big deal until the right was truly sure they couldn’t punch down on gay people anymore.
I was so confused for a moment, until I noticed the “race” in the title was referring to an election.
I’d be in favor of an exception for trans people transitioning just like there’s an exception for people who just got married but it sounds like the real problem is nobody told her the requirements.
It’s a good thing Nimarata doesn’t live in Ohio amirite!
US Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists, what else is new.
If you want to run for office, its your duty to understand what you are required to file. Find a lawyer who specializes in this, perhaps, or work with your local party office? Not the greatest initial performance for someone looking to serve in office.
Why are you downvoted lmao?
Edit: Apparently she did try to follow everything but she found no mention of the rules even after consulting professionals and experts. So 0 fault of her.
Another victory for the followers of Jesus
Ignorance of the law doesn’t give you freedom from the law. Too bad, so sad. Try again next time.
FontMasterFlex, you’re clearly missing the point. It’s an unjust law that exists to keep people like her out of office. It’s another Christian right wing - sorry, I mean government - tactic to keep the other team from being allowed to play.
It’s the same as the laws that were passed requiring abortion clinics to have 18 ft wide hallways. “We’re not banning abortion! We’re just concerned about the rights of all the 18’+ women seeking treatment!”
Fuck unjust laws that keep people from getting into positions to overturn unjust laws.
Removed by mod
it was probably not put there against trans people in the first place, I’ll give you that.
but it definitely stops trans people from getting the work without renouncing to their own identity. it’s an unjust law against trans people, there’s no discussion of that.
it’s not like trans people aren’t aware of the law and that’s why they don’t abide, it’s because they don’t want to give up their dignity by using their dead name.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
