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.

  • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
    27·
    10 months ago

    This is a perfect opportunity for you to go do some research to see if it was known some cis-candidate changed their name and they weren’t removed the ballot.

    Short of that, declaring unfairness against trans people doesn’t hold much water.

    And that being said, people are always looking for a way to disqualify their opponents, and so in sure it’s standard practice to look to see if they’ve violated this law to get them removed.

    Although, IIRC, it you changed your name because of marriage, that doesn’t count. So either they have to allow name changes from transitions to be exempt, or include name changes because of marriages to make the law fair, imo.

    • Halosheep@lemm.ee
      63·
      10 months ago

      I see where you’re coming from but your version of fair seems to only disproportionately affect women rather than men. Not as many men change their name due to marriage as do women.

      • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        I strongly disagree with the implication that just because it affects one group more than another, that makes it inherently suspect. Is there more to the argument?

          • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            10 months ago

            I think we both agree that if something intentionally targets one group over another in an attempt to treat them unfairly, that is unfair. Where I think we differ is that if something doesn’t target some group specifically, but it just happens to affect one group more than another, then I don’t see that as unfair and you, if I interpret your position correctly, see that as a unfair.

            However, I suspect I can find a case you would disagree with. Like men are more violent, so laws that punish violence are going to, imo completely fairly, disproportionately affect men. Are laws that punish violence unfair?