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.
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.
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.
Candidates should be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change.unfortunate typo
Oops
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.
As if the transphobes only want to hear their deadnames to stroke their egos.
Good clarification. The title is still correct though. They still want her to use her prior name, just not exclusively so.
Disclose, not use. She can use her name as her real name and political persona
Putting your name on something IS using it.
I feel like you’re being a bit obtuse, use in the sense of what she’s running under. The headline and tenor of all this is trying to mislead folks into the narrative that she is being forced to run and be identified according to her dead-name or whatever.
That’s all, no need to continue this line of inquiry
It literally is requiring her to be identified by her deadname. Which is why “use” is the correct term. It actually is meaningful, even if you don’t realize that it is. It’s not just a technicality.
It’s not requiring her to identify by that name. The requirement is that it is listed on the petition as a name change. ‘use’ is not the right word and ‘list’ or ‘include’ are better options.
No it isn’t. I had to disclose my prior name when registering to vote, for my passport and driving license applications, and for my working with children check.
That’s using your name. You had to use your name to do those things. You can say it’s fine. But understanding that you’re using that name might help you understand one of the difficulties of being trans.
I’m not trying to be difficult or win an argument or anything. This is just a real example of how a trans person has to deal with being deadnamed.
Yeah, this is an interesting case, the public has a legitimate interest to know the previous identity of a candidate, and the candidate has a legitimate interest in disassociating with their previous identity.
Thankfully Americans are known to approach such cases with compassion and nuance, surely.
Are people made aware of the previous identity, or is it just for security’s sake in the application process?
It really is not what you are saying it is. You have to disclose it, not use it, because otherwise it’s an easy way to evade any background checks. No one except the recipient of your application is going to see it; using a name is not the same as disclosing it. Using it means it is employed in a manner which people will identify you as, this is not the case here.
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.
Yeah who do they think changed her name? It’s in the public record because a judge did it
But if it’s on the form and required, isn’t it the candidates fault for not following procedure? They just blatantly didn’t follow the rules. You shouldn’t complain about rules after you break them and if you know about them in advance.
It wasn’t on the form and she didn’t know about it in advance.
If it’s not on the form, it shouldn’t be considered a requirement. I would be suing.
If this person can’t follow the law/rules on the APPLICATION, why would they be trusted to follow the rules when/if they are elected to office.
Removed by mod
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.
Meanwhile Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley…
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?
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
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.
What was your reaction to being told that?
I was pissed. I was a broke college student and it was like $60 that I had to scrounge together. And it wasn’t the safest thing to be openly a trans woman in Ohio at the time. I didn’t necessarily want to hide from the future, but I also didn’t want people from my past to see as I was making a lot of clean breaks at the time.
They specifically state marriage has an exception.
Changing names for marriage is actually excluded from the law, but your point still stands. Listing recent alternate names/aliases is extremely common
Your previous legal person sort of stops existing and a new legal person walks away. You’re obviously still responsible for everything but it may not be so easy ten years later for people to ever put the two together. If you had bad credit you may find that you suddenly have a clean slate.
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.
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.
