this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024

323 points (85.5% liked)

News

31384 readers

2690 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. 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

323

Transgender woman is disqualified from Ohio House race for not using her former name (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 107 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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?

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Looking at you Ted Cruz... the zodiac killer

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago

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?

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 7 points 2 years ago

That you're not a recently convicted felon, I suppose.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Doesn't being a convicted felon disqualify you from running in any case - or is that just voting?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Voting, not running, and not even always voting. It varies state by state.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 77 points 2 years ago (8 children)

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?"

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Just curious. Why make an exception for marriage? If the intention is so people can identify you if they recently knew you by your previous name, that seems even more pertinent.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Religious BS, probably. Marriage is religious in origin.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not religious in origin, but the people who propose using it as exclusions to laws think so.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Nah pair mating happens in other species. Religion just got its claws into it at some point.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Marriage and monogamous pairs are different though. You can have one without the other.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Meh. True monogamy is quite rare in mammals.

Used to think monogamy was very common in birds, but IRC thanks to DNA testing, we now know plenty of baby birds have a different daddy. Ie. they raise the baby together, but they have an open relationship and impregnate/get impregnated by other birds.

Apparently that's surprisingly rare in humans.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No it isn't. Religion usurped it and claim they invented it but it's older than that

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The answer is that there shouldn't be. And a woman changing her name to match her husband's is archaic patriarchal bullshit. I'm glad my wife decided not to do that.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m just spit-balling here, but I assume the reason for requiring someone to disclose a recent name change is so that you don’t have someone trying to run under a new name for reasons of deception. “What’s that? Oh no, it’s okay, I know that Donald Trump can’t be on the ballot, but my name is Ronald Krump. Common mistake.”

In most jurisdictions you can legally change your name when you get married without paying a fee or filing any other paperwork (don’t ask me if that applies to men, that’s a whole other archaic bit of bullshit). It’s therefore also the most common reason for someone to change their name, and I guess they just figured nobody would bother getting married just so they could get on a ballot with a different name.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Jorge Santos about to run for the House for the first time in 2024.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I assume because marriage requires a lot of documentation and an official process, whereas my name change only required my friends to sign a document I made.

[–] ShunkW@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Marriage requires a license and an officiant. Name change often requires a hearing and publication in a newspaper. So, no, you're wrong.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago

I would guess it is for establishing that you meet residency requirements to be eligible to run for office and don't have a criminal history that would disqualify you.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because it has nothing to do with that. If the goal was to inform the public there would not be an easy escape clause

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Pavidus@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I'm not disputing the rules, they just seem so damn archaic at this point. The digital era made a lot of this redundant. Got my social? The government knows who I am. Got my current ID? The government knows who I am.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

Yeah who do they think changed her name? It’s in the public record because a judge did it

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Let's call this what it is: erecting a humiliating barrier in front of someone to prevent them from running for office

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

Meanwhile Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley...

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Isn’t listing your former legal names kind of common for just about anything government related? If she got married and took her spouse’s last name she’s be in the same boat. No?

Also, is there no way to rectify a stupid clerical error?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not really. I changed my name in Ohio about 5 years ago when I transitioned and it hasn’t really come up since. I would’ve made the same mistake since this is the name I’ve used exclusively for years except when clarifying about my past. I occasionally have to bring out my name change paperwork solely because I never got around to editing my birth certificate but these days my passport is updated so I just have to use that to prove citizenship.

The other big reason I wouldn’t think to disclose is because this state has mandatory publication of non-marital name changes. In order to change my name I had to pay a newspaper to announce it so it’s in the public record beyond court records. I would have assumed that counted as sufficient declaration to the state that my name has been changed

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

They specifically state marriage has an exception.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Changing names for marriage is actually excluded from the law, but your point still stands. Listing recent alternate names/aliases is extremely common

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Octagon9561@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

US Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists, what else is new.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

It's a good thing Nimarata doesn't live in Ohio amirite!

load more comments