In Ohio, a state that is much in the news lately on transgender issues, a transgender political candidate - one of four openly trans candidates to be seeking office in the Buckeye state this year - has been disqualified from the ballot for failing to present a previous legal name in the filing process, which is required by Ohio state law.
At least four Ohioans filed petitions last month to become the first openly transgender lawmaker in the state, most of them because of recent Republican efforts to pass anti-transgender legislation.
However, at least one of the prospective candidates has been disqualified from running based on a state law requiring them to put their former names on their candidate petitions.
All four who filed to run – Bobbie Arnold of Preble County, Arienne Childrey of Auglaize County, Ari Faber of Athens, and Vanessa Joy of Massillon – are political newcomers who live in solidly Republican, mostly rural districts.
Joy, a real-estate photographer from Massillon, had submitted paperwork to run as a Democrat for House District 50, which covers most of Stark County outside of Canton. However, the Stark County Board of Elections voted unanimously on Tuesday to disqualify Joy from running in the March 19 primary because she didn’t include her previous name on her candidate petitions, according to the Canton Repository.
The relevant Ohio state law, Section 3513.271 of the Ohio State Code, which may be read in its entirety here, states in part:
If any person desiring to become a candidate for public office has had a change of name within five years immediately preceding the filing of his statement of candidacy, both his statement of candidacy and nominating petition must contain, immediately following the person's present name, the person's former names. Any person who has been elected under the person's changed name, without submission of the person's former name, shall be immediately suspended from the office and the office declared vacated, and shall be liable to the state for any salary the person has received while holding such office.
Interestingly, the law specifically exempts name changes due to marriage, which in any case does not apply in this instance.
The four candidates, as noted, are running in response to what they see as "anti-transgender" legislation.
See Related: Gov. Mike DeWine Just Showed He Does Not Understand the Dangers of 'Gender-Affirming Care' for Children
It's also interesting to note that all four are running in districts where they have little or no chance of actually winning their elections - but then, the world has no shortage of windmills to tilt at.
While Vanessa Joy is decrying this as discrimination - it's not, it's Ohio state law and applies to names changed for any reason other than marriage - this is far from an unusual ask. When we were both wearing Uncle Sam's colors back in the last years of the Cold War, my wife and I both, for various reasons, had reason to obtain security clearances; part of the documentation process for that was providing any and all names we had ever been known by not for the previous five years but for our entire lives. (Easy for me as I've never changed my name.) As I recall, the last time we applied for a mortgage, again, this was a question that we were required to answer.
If the requirement does not in fact appear in the published Ohio candidate requirements, that's clearly an omission that the State of Ohio needs to address. But the law is the law, and if Vanessa Joy had simply filled out the documentation as the law requires, this never would have been an issue.
One of the other candidates, Bobbie Arnold, was also disqualified for this reason, and took an even strain on the issue:
“Unfortunately, we just got caught up in that loophole because of circumstances,” said Arnold, who filed to run against Republican state Rep. Rodney Creech of Preble County. “Which is nobody’s fault. It is what it is. We just have to learn how to roll with it and try to keep going.”
Whatever one thinks of these candidates or their reasons for standing for election, this isn't the worst way to look at this issue. When one makes a mistake, one learns from it, picks up, and moves on.
There are any number of reasons for a law like this, not the least of which is that voters have a right to know their candidate's background - all of it - whether that background includes being transgender, having been a convicted felon, or any number of other reasons. It's not an unreasonable request, unless, apparently, one is a thin-skinned sort worried about being "deadnamed."
