Really sounds like we just found some old ass rule on the books and we're using it to discriminate against trans people specifically.
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
390 points (91.7% liked)
News
23268 readers
3575 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, it makes sense to me. Whether you are trans or not, I feel like people voting for you should be aware if you have changed your name so they can do some googling and make sure you didn't get into any controversy or shenanigans before you changed your name.
Sure they are specifically using this law to target this person because they disagree with their way of life, but it's an old law and was passed for reasons before trans issues were even prevalent so the law itself isn't transphobic.
Using your logic, explain the exception for marriage.
Because an exception to that was taken into account long before now, and trans people were not.
But just because the people that drafted this law didn't write out an exception for deadnames doesn't mean it's inherently transphobic. This was hardly a major topic in the public discourse when these laws were made.
Again, a law that requires voters have transparency is a good thing overall. It needs updated, yes, but the problem here is how it's being used as a tool to abuse. The law is to prevent fraud, but no fraud is being committed.
The dead name requirement isn't the issue. There is no way to provide that info, the requirement to provide tha info isn't documented, and they are attempting to disqualify her over it. The actual fuck?
Exactly, if this was a genuine mistake they’d present opportunities to rectify it and try to ensure it doesn’t happen in the future. The law probably wasn’t meant specifically to hurt trans people but the implementation clearly is.
That didn't actually answer my question.
The poster says that this law makes sense because voters need to be able to research their candidates. The exception for marriage contradicts that logic - do we not need to research married people? I want to see how they square that circle is all.
load more comments
(1 replies)
me on my way to do crimes before getting married so I dont have to declare my name change when running for congress or whatever
For public office I'm not entirely sure there should be an exception. I'm not sure why there is, other than people might say it's unfair to women who are the most likely to have had a name change and it's an extra burden than most men won't need to do.
If a man changed his name for marriage I would like to be aware before voting as well.
Because an exception for that was taken into account long before now, and trans people were not.
But just because the people that drafted this law didn't write out an exception for deadnames doesn't mean it's inherently transphobic. This was hardly a major topic in the public discourse when these laws were made.
Again, a law that requires voters have transparency is a good thing overall. It needs updated, yes, but the problem here is how it's being used as a tool to abuse. The law is to prevent fraud, but no fraud is being committed.
I think where the communication is failing here is partly because intent vs effect. Were the people intending to hurt trans people when the law was written? It’s unlikely. Did it? That’s arguable for basically any time before 2015ish, it did create a dangerous and uncomfortable barrier between trans people and serving in the state legislature but it was by no means the biggest until recently. The most influence we had on politics in the 80s was dying, rioting, and when politicians became regular johns. But today’s implementation? They’ve burned every benefit of the doubt and all that remains is that there’s a slim chance some of these people are only enforcing this rule so strictly because she’s a democrat.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The discussion around deadnaming and necessary or legal record keeping is kind of ongoing, but that's not what's happening here.
The point of rules like this is to dissuade deceptive name changes but there's no reason to view this particular case as deceptive. That's why it's going up for review and not disqualifying them immediately. Ideally, Congress would recognize this case doesn't fit the spirit of that rule and both allow them to campaign while simultaneously setting a precedent or rewriting the rule to exclude deadnames.
As to whether that'll actually happen, and how fair and impartial the review will be, I think we can all guess it won't be.
It's an understandable rule, but this is dishonest enforcement of it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But the original law still exempts name change by marriage . To me it feels like name changes not on official public record should be the target, as in a deliberate pseudonym. Still, what fits under that umbrella? Your twitter handle, if it isn't your legal name would fit, but no one included that since the law was written.
I'm not sure that's their logic in this case. Has this been used to disqualify cisgender candidates? Is there precedent for this in the last decade?
I wouldn't think so, especially with how common it is for people of Anglo culture to use a "non-official" name on official documents (in my experience, which is something I never saw with clients of other cultures).
load more comments
(5 replies)
The crux of your argument about "make sure you didn't get into any controversy" is baked into the name change process...
A legal name change in the U.S. for any reason other than marriage or divorce typically requires several steps. First, the applicant must file paperwork that includes the reason for the name change and pay filing fees that can be hundreds of dollars. Then the applicant attends a court hearing where they may need to defend the reasons for their name change. If they are granted a court order for a name change, they will need to go through name change processes for other documents such as driver’s licenses and birth certificates, which require additional fees. Many states also require that the applicant pay to publish their name change in the newspaper, with some states requiring multiple publications.
https://uclawreview.org/2021/10/01/name-changes-do-we-need-judicial-discretion/
Ohio in particular is one such a state that requires you to publish the name change in the newspaper
I had to go through this in NY, it sounds like roughly the same process. It's the biggest pain in the ass and ended up costing around $600 or so?
That was almost a decade and like six apartments ago, and I still get spam sent to me under my dead name in the mail
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The old ass rule has a legitimate purpose, but this isn't it.
Ding ding ding!
The one it originally happened to has a father who is a conservative politician in the state and likely wanted to avoid the hit to his own numbers from people knowing about his child.
When people pointed out it wasn't enforced, someone was going to use it for everyone else too
I'm going with Hanlon's Razor on this one and assuming this is just a really stupid bureaucratic failure where a form doesn't have a box for required info that it doesn't tell you is required. Curious if there are similar examples for name changes by cis people, which I wouldn't expect to be newsworthy. Regardless it needs to be fixed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Selectively enforcing for a certain segment of the population an unadvertised rule is total copshit
load more comments
(3 replies)
I have a feeling she will be successful if they DQ her and she challenges it. Interacting with the bureaucracy of the state we are expected to do what reasonable people would do to comply with the rules and regs, such as follow the directions on the forms provided and follow instructions from officials.
It's unreasonable to expect a person to go digging for extra rules and extra regulations if there is no indication they might exist.
If the form had a place for aliases or prior names, then it would be ok to disqualify anyone who left out a previous name. If there were instructions to provide a list of previous names in a separate document, it would be ok to disqualify. Hell, if the person handing over the document or the website you download it from specifically stated that all previous names shall be disclosed, it would be ok to disqualify.
Most financial documents, for example, specifically ask for that. A lot of government identification applications (passports, drivers licenses, etc) ask for that. So when one encounters a form that doesn't ask for that, there's no reason to suspect that it's necessary.
A good lawyer will have her on the ballot no problem.
Thank you for this reasonable and informed take. A lot of folks up in arms about the identity politics issue, but the real issue is the bureaucracy is not operating in a way that aligns with the law or instructs people to comply. Corrections should be allowed by the candidates and the bureaucracy needs to update procedures.
You know how this is stopped? Good people need to replace those on the board of elections and other positions. This is what Republicans are doing (but with bad people) with great success, while those on the left or opting out, discouraging participation, and guaranteeing loss.
For some reason, half of Lemmy is so confident that waiting (because doing anything more than reading and talking shit on LIBS! doesn't actually occur) for a massive war between the East and West where hundreds of millions die and whole ecosystems are destroyed is easier and more likely to be successful than voting that they won't even cast a ballot.
Imagine thinking, "oh, voting won't work, running for office won't work, sorry my minority "friends", I'm not gonna do something as difficult as grocery shopping for you because I'm certain what's best for you and others like you is to suffer die while I wait for something that's probably not going to happen."
To those who think voting or running for office won't matter, ask yourself why Republicans fight so hard to limit voting and keep people like this candidate out of office?
I do see a lot of justified Lib hate on here, but a lot of the complaints I have seen on Lemmy have the complainer claiming that they do begrudgingly vote for the dems, despite the criticism. I am not a fan of Biden at all, and I think there are tons of better candidates for the job, but I will still vote for him when I am forced to choose between that and Trump.
Just because people criticize the Dems, doesn't mean that they completely opt out of the voting process.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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.
Yep. Third bullet point would solve the issue entirely
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.
Would you make a divorced woman use her ex husband's last name when running for office? Same difference.
That would fall under the exemption due to marriage too, I expect. She should just marry her dog
The point of the law is to prevent things like someone surreptitiously changing their name right before they run for office. E.g. to the same name as another candidate.
It's all about transparency and preventing dirty election tricks. It was probably created long before the current slate of right wing transphobia
A woman who gets divorced and changes her name is exactly the type of situation that could be artificially manufactured in order to swing an election. For example, if she had the same name as a popular candidate/person (even elsewhere in the US!) before she got married.
Hey, Ohio lawmakers: Get Fucked.
Dang whats in the water in Ohio? . . . Oh right vinyl chloride from freight train accidents.
Oh it’s the Ohio legislature I’m sure they’ll follow the law and the will of the people striving to create a fair democratic government. /s
Nah they’re going to tell her no, and possibly make the law stricter because we’re their present target since their attempt to ban abortion was stopped. Oh they may attempt to gerrymander harder too, but that might not be mathematically feasible
view more: next ›