After the candidacy of three transgender women in Ohio was debated due to them only including their legal name and not their “dead name” on petitions, Ohio Democrats introduced legislation to fix the little-known law so that LGBTQ+ individuals don’t face barriers to run. But the candidates’ Republican opponents introduced their own bill that would make it easier to kick contenders off the ballot.
WEWS/OCJ was the first to report that county boards of elections in Ohio got to pick and choose which transgender candidates made the ballot — leading to the law being unevenly applied to the three candidates who each broke an obscure rule requiring disclosure of a name change within five years.
Context
The Mercer County Board of Elections certified Arienne Childrey, Montgomery certified Bobbie Arnold but Stark disqualified Vanessa Joy.
Joy reached out to Statehouse reporter Morgan Trau to share her situation, which, after publishing, went viral internationally. Joy was disqualified for not including her former name on petitions.
After a denied appeal, she remains off the ballot due to the little-known law from the 1990s. It originated decades ago and requires all candidates to list on their signature petitions any name changes within five years. There is an exception that says the law doesn’t apply to marriage name changes.
Not only is there nowhere to put a former name on the petitions but the law isn’t included in the secretary of state’s 2024 candidate guide. It hasn’t been on any candidate guides in recent years.
For many trans individuals, their former names — or “dead names,” can be traumatizing, dehumanizing or dangerous for their safety.
“But in the trans community, our dead names are dead; there’s a reason it’s dead — that is a dead person who is gone and buried,” Joy said.
After initially certifying both Childrey and Arnold, their boards of elections held up that decision since they determined that no one knew about this provision and because the boards said they weren’t trying to mislead people.
Following each of these decisions, both Democrats and Republicans started looking into election laws related to transgender candidates, and each side proposed their own.
Democratic bill
House Bill 467 would change the law so candidates would not need to disclose their former name so long as the change was ordered by a court in Ohio.
This means that Joy and the other trans candidates who legally changed their names would not have to list their dead names.
The bill was introduced by Democratic state Reps. Michele Grim (Toledo) and Beryl Brown Piccolantonio (Gahanna) after they saw coverage of the disqualification.
“This is common sense legislation that will provide a simple fix so those who decide to run for office can approach the decision without ambiguity of the requirements,” Grim said. “This most recent primary cycle brought to light an unevenly enforced requirement that needs to be clarified.”
Joy, Childrey and Arnold applauded the Democrats for their legislation.
“I made much more of an impact than I thought because this case kind of resonated nationwide, and the law was found in other states as well,” Joy said. “I’m hoping that this has bolstered people to run and to get out and vote to just make changes like this.”
This bill would also add space to the Declaration of Candidacy form so that candidates who are required to provide previous names used in the last five years for any reason will have space to do so. Additionally, it would require the secretary of state to include this requirement in the candidate guide.
And while Childrey was happy about this bill, she was quickly turned to the actions of Republicans.
“It’s interesting to know that we’ve now inspired two bills — both pro and con — in the state legislature,” Childrey said.
Republican bill
A bill, which has not been assigned a number yet, has been introduced in light of the candidacies and would allow for greater protest against a political party nomination.
Republican state Reps. Rodney Creech (West Alexandria) and Angie King (Celina) said their bill is about checks and balances.
“I view it as a bipartisan bill of accountability,” Creech said. “Our goal is to follow the law and have fair and transparent elections.”
Current law only allows for voters to protest the candidacy of someone in their own party before the primary election. For example, only Republicans can protest Republican nominee candidates.
Their bill would allow anyone, regardless of affiliation, to protest a candidate within or outside their party. This means that a Republican could protest a Democratic nominee candidate and vice-versa. Independents could challenge anyone, as well.
“It’s about election integrity and transparency and certification defects need to be addressed regardless of which party is protesting,” King explained.
But for Childrey and Arnold, this is a targeted attack.
“I find it incredibly ironic,” Childrey said. “If we look at who the two representatives that have introduced this bill, they happen to be the only two representatives in the state of Ohio that are facing trans candidates as their Democratic opponents.”
That’s right — Arnold is facing off against Creech and Childrey against King.
“That is absolutely no coincidence at all in my mind,” Arnold said.
The Republicans don’t deny the connection.
“I’m not going to cover anything up — I think if they want to get on the ballot, they need to follow the law just like I do,” Creech said. “What bothered me was the three transgender candidates in Ohio put their name on the ballot as Democrats and could only be challenged by Democrats.”
Technically speaking, the women did break the law, he added. Neither of the incumbents is bothered by the fact that their opponents are transgender, they said, with Creech emphasizing that he doesn’t think that any of the trans candidates should be taken off the ballot.
“It’s their responsibility to properly complete the form,” King said.
Although the name change rule wasn’t in the candidate’s guide — there is a disclaimer on the second page that states the guide is “only a brief summary and not a complete digest of laws.”
King was frustrated with the events in Mercer County.
The chair for the Mercer County GOP filed a protest against Childrey’s candidacy, but it was thrown out due to lack of standing — since he is a registered Republican.
Anyone should be able to fight for the application of law, she said, adding that she has another concern.
“I feel it’s disingenuous to both the candidates and the voters to certify, to put someone on the ballot, who — should they win — are prohibited from serving,” she said.
This happened in Alliance last month. Recently elected law director Caitlyn Weyer had to resign from her job and withdraw from the GOP primary race for Stark County judge because she took the name of her longtime partner and neglected to include her former name on petitions, according to WEWS’s media partners at the Canton Repository.
Primary meddling
Each of the trans candidates said that Republicans are being hypocritical with this piece of legislation, especially since the Ohio GOP has put forward numerous bills to close the state’s primaries.
“The argument that we’ve heard is ‘we don’t want the opposing party meddling in someone’s primary,’” Childrey said. “At the same time that Republicans want to champion that, they want the ability to meddle in our primaries.”
Although there is no hard evidence of Democrats jumping ship and voting for Republicans in the primaries to elect more moderate or more “beatable” challengers, the GOP insists it is happening. Despite no data, WEWS/OCJ has heard anecdotes proving their theory.
Both Republicans deny the allegations of interference.
“It’s not called meddling, it’s called accountability,” Creech said. “It’s almost like the Democrats are encouraging people to not follow the law… All we’re doing is trying to enforce something that’s been in existence for 75 years.”
Final thoughts
Neither Republican is worried about their opponents at the end of the day since their districts are ruby red.
Arnold and Childrey think their opponents need to spend more time focusing on actually helping constituents on problems such as housing and food insecurity.
“They’re spending an incredible amount of time specifically targeting trans people,” Arnold said, mentioning that King is the sponsor of a public drag show ban and both have supported legislation deemed anti-LGBTQ+ by advocates, health care providers, families and educators.
Creech argued that this isn’t anti-trans, and that this is just pro-law.
“It’s just the transgender situation brought this to our attention — that the checks and balances are not in place,” Creech said.
Trans people deserve to have their voices heard, especially with the slew of bills impacting their communities, Childrey said.
“We need protection from the vicious attacks coming from this party, right and left, not only on the trans community but on voters,” she added.
Both bills could be heard in the upcoming months, but nothing would impact the coming general election.
This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and is published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content-sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication by other news outlets as it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
