For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.
I read about this from Erin Reed. She said that there was 1) no place on the rules of the petition that said she had to list it and 2) no place to write it in on the petition
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 be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change. It has nothing to do with trans issues or dead names.
Well, they can apparently get married to hide their past indiscretions.
Their husbands will sort them out. /s
And yet getting married and changing your name without disclosure is fine.
"Recent" being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don't want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
You would know if you would read the article.
I was being rhetorical- I know that they aren't applying it to married people. But why? Wouldn't the same reasoning hold, that you could use it to defraud? If not, why wouldn't changing your name to transition not be in the same category of life event as marriage?
or, hear me out. if you're running for political office, you deal with such things like an adult. deadname or not, this person would face MUCH more harsh situations in office than having to put a name you don't go by anymore.
I'm afraid that's a pretty poor argument. It's not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn't just using a old name. For a lot of people, it's kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it's still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don't see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn't be applied at all (like it hasn't been applied in decades to the extent that it isn't even on the official form).
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 requiring her to list what her deadname is, which is a far cry from using her deadname.
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.
*prior identity of someone who didn't change their name when married apparently. Just anyone who changed their name legally for any other reason, like going back to their maiden name, being transgender, or wanting to change their name for any other number of reasons.
Are people made aware of the previous identity, or is it just for security's sake in the application process?
I'm not sure how it works in Ohio, but my state has a similar thing where a candidate will have their previous name listed underneath in parenthesis.
That could be interpreted as having to use your name (even if it's under the guise of disclosing it, so the public cannot be misled), which seems like a hugely contentious issue with regards to transpeople.
Plus, depending on the names, it's tantamount to labeling their minority status on the ballot.
Considering the absolute garbage posts which are pushed on Facebook, and the comments underneath them, it's very obvious that there are so many people behind the times in terms of attitudes towards all sorts of minorities, highlighting these aspects could easily result in harm towards them and their families.
I'm probably speaking out of turn here, but reporting a previous name is a simple matter of security, not deadnaming. I'm not trans, but I use my stepfather's surname and changed to that legally when I was 18. If someone called me by my mom's abuser's name to my face I would be distraught, but when forms ask me for prior legal names I just list it and it's not a big deal. It's just an identity thing.
The form isn't asking "what's your real name?" it's asking "have you ever been known by any other legal names?"
I think it's reasonable that you need to use your previous name to help identify you for security purposes. I'm not really arguing against that.
But at the same time, if you did have a problem with using it at all because you had completely disassociated with it, I would understand that too.
A lot of people seem to be deeply offended by a modicum of empathy though.
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.
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.
Looking at you Ted Cruz... the zodiac killer
Whos that? Do you mean Texas politician Rafael Cruz?
Nimarata Randhawa Haley must be shitting her pants...
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?
That you're not a recently convicted felon, I suppose.
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.
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?"
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.
Religious BS, probably. Marriage is religious in origin.
Not religious in origin, but the people who propose using it as exclusions to laws think so.
Nah pair mating happens in other species. Religion just got its claws into it at some point.
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.
Less that they "have an open relationship" and more that the birds sneak around behind each-other's backs. Males go off and try to sneakily impregnate other females, females sneak around and try to get impregnated by other males. You find it in apes too.
Isn't this anthropomorphizing, though? Is there evidence that the mates would experience emotional distress if they learned their partners were "cheating" on them?
Being in a consensually monogamous relationship, I know I would and my husband would, but how much of that is cultural? I'm not really convinced it's something that's ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, though if you have a source about this that discredits my (admittedly amateurish) hypothesis, I'd be open to learning more.
Sure, but saying "have an open relationship" is also anthropomorphizing. Also, sneaking around describes what happens much better. I don't know what it looks like with birds, but with apes when a non-dominant male mates with a female, they have to sneak around to do it. If the dominant male catches the non-dominant male he'll attack him.
I haven't found articles about chimps and gorillas, but I remember it being similar.
Huh today I learned something interesting! Thanks for the link.
Marriage and monogamous pairs are different though. You can have one without the other.
Sure and you can have landownership without paperwork. Pretty confident if you went on a guys farm plot 10k years ago he would make it clear who owned it.
Birds ain't getting married my dude
No it isn't. Religion usurped it and claim they invented it but it's older than that
How much older? And were the origins devoid of religious influence?
I'd be curious about this claim. There's pair bonding in other species, and other species that are (mostly) monogamous, but an explicit formal declaration of a monogamous pairing is something that doesn't happen until you have some kind of culture and by the time we have any kinds of surviving records (even mostly coherent oral traditions) of anything religion already has it claws in a lot of things.
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.
Mine did, but that's mostly because she didn't change it back after the divorce from her ex was finalized because she figured we were headed in that general direction and it would save her some paperwork.
I made a point of telling her it was up to her, and that things like both of us hyphenating her maiden name and my name were on the table if she wanted, but she wanted to take my name and I'm fine with that.
I figured the odds are that it started as patriarchal bullshit in the most literal sense. Less claiming ownership of the woman like you are thinking and more claiming ownership of the children.
But I suspect that a lot of cultural institutions that are considered patriarchal bullshit had their origins in trying to square the circle of wanting men to be materially responsible for their offspring and also paternity being non-certain with no obvious solution using bronze age technology. So you legally and culturally tie man and woman together, make any of their offspring legally his and bear his name, and leave it to him to make sure no other man is fathering children with her.
Compare to groups like the Mosuo where there are no permanent pair bonds, but also men aren't materially responsible for their offspring or raising them - children belong to their mother's family, only. Women are still supposed to know who fathered their children, but I suspect you'll never get away from that as a norm just to avoid half siblings breeding.
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.
Jorge Santos about to run for the House for the first time in 2024.
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.
Marriage requires a license and an officiant. Name change often requires a hearing and publication in a newspaper. So, no, you're wrong.
In most US states you need to have a decree of name change notarized by the county clerk, or issued by a family court if. Not that hard to do, but a lot more formal and government-involved than the UK process.
Good to know, cheers.
Do you think Ohio is in the UK?
Did I say it was? I said "I assume", and "my name change", not hard to read one sentence.
Your name change, which took place in an entirely different country than where this all occurred... and you assume it was the same process, then you get mouthy with the guy who corrected you...
You sure you're from the UK? You sound more like an American twat.
Yes, mine, which I was very clear about. I said "I assume", which seemed like a nice and fair enough caveat. The guy who "corrected" my experience? Yeah okay. Said "No, you're wrong" to my own experience is just being a knob.
I really don't care what you think.
Yeah you missed the part about this being in Ohio
You missed the part were I said "my name change". I have no idea about Ohio, and you didn't seek to give clarification, you just responded like a prick.
Lol yeah, I'm the prick here.
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.
They probably wouldn’t make an exception for marriage actually
It's mentioned in the comment section here that they do.
You can find a name change on the marriage license. So perhaps you look up the name of the person on the marriage license and find the previous name.
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
Ah yes, a law that sounds equal but mostly applies to women in practice due to who is most likely to change their name.
Changing name due to marriage is specifically excluded from this requirement, likely due to the disproportionate effect on women.
So it just ends up being disproportionately targeted at transgender people then.
Sorry, I assumed it was like the TSA PreCheck which requires every name change a woman has gone through during their entire life.
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...
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
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.
Like any politician follows the rules. Lol
that's kind of the point
If no politician, or very few at any rate, follows the rules then it is a moot point because it can't be a metric for indicating effectiveness in office. This, not worth mentioning at all.
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.
US Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists, what else is new.
It's a good thing Nimarata doesn't live in Ohio amirite!
If you want to run for office, its your duty to understand what you are required to file. Find a lawyer who specializes in this, perhaps, or work with your local party office? Not the greatest initial performance for someone looking to serve in office.
Why are you downvoted lmao?
Edit: Apparently she did try to follow everything but she found no mention of the rules even after consulting professionals and experts. So 0 fault of her.
Ignorance of the law doesn't give you freedom from the law. Too bad, so sad. Try again next time.
FontMasterFlex, you're clearly missing the point. It's an unjust law that exists to keep people like her out of office. It's another Christian right wing - sorry, I mean government - tactic to keep the other team from being allowed to play.
It's the same as the laws that were passed requiring abortion clinics to have 18 ft wide hallways. "We're not banning abortion! We're just concerned about the rights of all the 18'+ women seeking treatment!"
Fuck unjust laws that keep people from getting into positions to overturn unjust laws.
For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.
I read about this from Erin Reed. She said that there was 1) no place on the rules of the petition that said she had to list it and 2) no place to write it in on the petition
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 be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change. It has nothing to do with trans issues or dead names.
Well, they can apparently get married to hide their past indiscretions.
Their husbands will sort them out. /s
And yet getting married and changing your name without disclosure is fine.
"Recent" being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don't want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
You would know if you would read the article.
I was being rhetorical- I know that they aren't applying it to married people. But why? Wouldn't the same reasoning hold, that you could use it to defraud? If not, why wouldn't changing your name to transition not be in the same category of life event as marriage?
or, hear me out. if you're running for political office, you deal with such things like an adult. deadname or not, this person would face MUCH more harsh situations in office than having to put a name you don't go by anymore.
I'm afraid that's a pretty poor argument. It's not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn't just using a old name. For a lot of people, it's kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it's still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don't see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn't be applied at all (like it hasn't been applied in decades to the extent that it isn't even on the official form).
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 requiring her to list what her deadname is, which is a far cry from using her deadname.
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.
*prior identity of someone who didn't change their name when married apparently. Just anyone who changed their name legally for any other reason, like going back to their maiden name, being transgender, or wanting to change their name for any other number of reasons.
Are people made aware of the previous identity, or is it just for security's sake in the application process?
I'm not sure how it works in Ohio, but my state has a similar thing where a candidate will have their previous name listed underneath in parenthesis.
That could be interpreted as having to use your name (even if it's under the guise of disclosing it, so the public cannot be misled), which seems like a hugely contentious issue with regards to transpeople.
Plus, depending on the names, it's tantamount to labeling their minority status on the ballot.
Considering the absolute garbage posts which are pushed on Facebook, and the comments underneath them, it's very obvious that there are so many people behind the times in terms of attitudes towards all sorts of minorities, highlighting these aspects could easily result in harm towards them and their families.
I'm probably speaking out of turn here, but reporting a previous name is a simple matter of security, not deadnaming. I'm not trans, but I use my stepfather's surname and changed to that legally when I was 18. If someone called me by my mom's abuser's name to my face I would be distraught, but when forms ask me for prior legal names I just list it and it's not a big deal. It's just an identity thing.
The form isn't asking "what's your real name?" it's asking "have you ever been known by any other legal names?"
I think it's reasonable that you need to use your previous name to help identify you for security purposes. I'm not really arguing against that.
But at the same time, if you did have a problem with using it at all because you had completely disassociated with it, I would understand that too.
A lot of people seem to be deeply offended by a modicum of empathy though.
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.
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.
Looking at you Ted Cruz... the zodiac killer
Whos that? Do you mean Texas politician Rafael Cruz?
Nimarata Randhawa Haley must be shitting her pants...
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?
That you're not a recently convicted felon, I suppose.
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.
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?"
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.
Religious BS, probably. Marriage is religious in origin.
Not religious in origin, but the people who propose using it as exclusions to laws think so.
Nah pair mating happens in other species. Religion just got its claws into it at some point.
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.
Less that they "have an open relationship" and more that the birds sneak around behind each-other's backs. Males go off and try to sneakily impregnate other females, females sneak around and try to get impregnated by other males. You find it in apes too.
Isn't this anthropomorphizing, though? Is there evidence that the mates would experience emotional distress if they learned their partners were "cheating" on them?
Being in a consensually monogamous relationship, I know I would and my husband would, but how much of that is cultural? I'm not really convinced it's something that's ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, though if you have a source about this that discredits my (admittedly amateurish) hypothesis, I'd be open to learning more.
Sure, but saying "have an open relationship" is also anthropomorphizing. Also, sneaking around describes what happens much better. I don't know what it looks like with birds, but with apes when a non-dominant male mates with a female, they have to sneak around to do it. If the dominant male catches the non-dominant male he'll attack him.
Here's an example from monkeys:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/monkeys-try-to-hide-illicit-hookups
I haven't found articles about chimps and gorillas, but I remember it being similar.
Huh today I learned something interesting! Thanks for the link.
Marriage and monogamous pairs are different though. You can have one without the other.
Sure and you can have landownership without paperwork. Pretty confident if you went on a guys farm plot 10k years ago he would make it clear who owned it.
Birds ain't getting married my dude
No it isn't. Religion usurped it and claim they invented it but it's older than that
How much older? And were the origins devoid of religious influence?
I'd be curious about this claim. There's pair bonding in other species, and other species that are (mostly) monogamous, but an explicit formal declaration of a monogamous pairing is something that doesn't happen until you have some kind of culture and by the time we have any kinds of surviving records (even mostly coherent oral traditions) of anything religion already has it claws in a lot of things.
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.
Mine did, but that's mostly because she didn't change it back after the divorce from her ex was finalized because she figured we were headed in that general direction and it would save her some paperwork.
I made a point of telling her it was up to her, and that things like both of us hyphenating her maiden name and my name were on the table if she wanted, but she wanted to take my name and I'm fine with that.
I figured the odds are that it started as patriarchal bullshit in the most literal sense. Less claiming ownership of the woman like you are thinking and more claiming ownership of the children.
But I suspect that a lot of cultural institutions that are considered patriarchal bullshit had their origins in trying to square the circle of wanting men to be materially responsible for their offspring and also paternity being non-certain with no obvious solution using bronze age technology. So you legally and culturally tie man and woman together, make any of their offspring legally his and bear his name, and leave it to him to make sure no other man is fathering children with her.
Compare to groups like the Mosuo where there are no permanent pair bonds, but also men aren't materially responsible for their offspring or raising them - children belong to their mother's family, only. Women are still supposed to know who fathered their children, but I suspect you'll never get away from that as a norm just to avoid half siblings breeding.
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.
Jorge Santos about to run for the House for the first time in 2024.
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.
Marriage requires a license and an officiant. Name change often requires a hearing and publication in a newspaper. So, no, you're wrong.
"my name change only..." Did you miss that part?
Here is what I did: https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll/make-an-adult-deed-poll
So, no, you’re wrong.
I think UK and US system might be different.
Likely so.
In most US states you need to have a decree of name change notarized by the county clerk, or issued by a family court if. Not that hard to do, but a lot more formal and government-involved than the UK process.
Good to know, cheers.
Do you think Ohio is in the UK?
Did I say it was? I said "I assume", and "my name change", not hard to read one sentence.
Your name change, which took place in an entirely different country than where this all occurred... and you assume it was the same process, then you get mouthy with the guy who corrected you...
You sure you're from the UK? You sound more like an American twat.
Yes, mine, which I was very clear about. I said "I assume", which seemed like a nice and fair enough caveat. The guy who "corrected" my experience? Yeah okay. Said "No, you're wrong" to my own experience is just being a knob.
I really don't care what you think.
Yeah you missed the part about this being in Ohio
You missed the part were I said "my name change". I have no idea about Ohio, and you didn't seek to give clarification, you just responded like a prick.
Lol yeah, I'm the prick here.
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.
They probably wouldn’t make an exception for marriage actually
It's mentioned in the comment section here that they do.
You can find a name change on the marriage license. So perhaps you look up the name of the person on the marriage license and find the previous name.
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
Ah yes, a law that sounds equal but mostly applies to women in practice due to who is most likely to change their name.
Changing name due to marriage is specifically excluded from this requirement, likely due to the disproportionate effect on women.
So it just ends up being disproportionately targeted at transgender people then.
Sorry, I assumed it was like the TSA PreCheck which requires every name change a woman has gone through during their entire life.
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...
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
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.
Like any politician follows the rules. Lol
that's kind of the point
If no politician, or very few at any rate, follows the rules then it is a moot point because it can't be a metric for indicating effectiveness in office. This, not worth mentioning at all.
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
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.
US Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists, what else is new.
It's a good thing Nimarata doesn't live in Ohio amirite!
If you want to run for office, its your duty to understand what you are required to file. Find a lawyer who specializes in this, perhaps, or work with your local party office? Not the greatest initial performance for someone looking to serve in office.
Why are you downvoted lmao?
Edit: Apparently she did try to follow everything but she found no mention of the rules even after consulting professionals and experts. So 0 fault of her.
Ignorance of the law doesn't give you freedom from the law. Too bad, so sad. Try again next time.
FontMasterFlex, you're clearly missing the point. It's an unjust law that exists to keep people like her out of office. It's another Christian right wing - sorry, I mean government - tactic to keep the other team from being allowed to play.
It's the same as the laws that were passed requiring abortion clinics to have 18 ft wide hallways. "We're not banning abortion! We're just concerned about the rights of all the 18'+ women seeking treatment!"
Fuck unjust laws that keep people from getting into positions to overturn unjust laws.