this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
350 points (85.7% liked)

News

23627 readers
2963 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 119 points 11 months ago (23 children)

For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.

[–] SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 11 months ago

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

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Candidates should be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change.

unfortunate typo

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well, they can apparently get married to hide their past indiscretions.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You don't get to change your first name my marriage, and generally, records are not sealed so people can find out their maiden name. Changing your name via court order can be sealed and often involves changing both first and last names.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

And yet getting married and changing your name without disclosure is fine.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 8 points 11 months ago (8 children)

"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?

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?

You would know if you would read the article.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 114 points 11 months ago (9 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?

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 28 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Looking at you Ted Cruz... the zodiac killer

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wahming@monyet.cc 7 points 11 months ago

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

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 11 months 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?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 83 points 11 months 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 62 points 11 months ago (24 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 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Religious BS, probably. Marriage is religious in origin.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months 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 9 points 11 months 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 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months 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 11 months ago (10 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 34 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months 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 41 points 11 months ago

Meanwhile Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley...

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months 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 11 months 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)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›