Really sounds like we just found some old ass rule on the books and we're using it to discriminate against trans people specifically.

Selectively enforcing for a certain segment of the population an unadvertised rule is total copshit

I have a feeling she will be successful if they DQ her and she challenges it. Interacting with the bureaucracy of the state we are expected to do what reasonable people would do to comply with the rules and regs, such as follow the directions on the forms provided and follow instructions from officials.

It's unreasonable to expect a person to go digging for extra rules and extra regulations if there is no indication they might exist.

If the form had a place for aliases or prior names, then it would be ok to disqualify anyone who left out a previous name. If there were instructions to provide a list of previous names in a separate document, it would be ok to disqualify. Hell, if the person handing over the document or the website you download it from specifically stated that all previous names shall be disclosed, it would be ok to disqualify.

Most financial documents, for example, specifically ask for that. A lot of government identification applications (passports, drivers licenses, etc) ask for that. So when one encounters a form that doesn't ask for that, there's no reason to suspect that it's necessary.

A good lawyer will have her on the ballot no problem.

You know how this is stopped? Good people need to replace those on the board of elections and other positions. This is what Republicans are doing (but with bad people) with great success, while those on the left or opting out, discouraging participation, and guaranteeing loss.

For some reason, half of Lemmy is so confident that waiting (because doing anything more than reading and talking shit on LIBS! doesn't actually occur) for a massive war between the East and West where hundreds of millions die and whole ecosystems are destroyed is easier and more likely to be successful than voting that they won't even cast a ballot.

Imagine thinking, "oh, voting won't work, running for office won't work, sorry my minority "friends", I'm not gonna do something as difficult as grocery shopping for you because I'm certain what's best for you and others like you is to suffer die while I wait for something that's probably not going to happen."

To those who think voting or running for office won't matter, ask yourself why Republicans fight so hard to limit voting and keep people like this candidate out of office?

At the risk of being dogpiled, I'd like to try to have some discussion on this.

Up front, I want to say that Ohio does a lot of dumb shit, trans rights are human rights, and weaponizing random laws against queer people is bullshit.

It seems clear to me that:

• There is a reasonable motivation for requiring reporting of recent name changes, and the exception for marriage is due to this being extremely common. The article states that this usually came up in the past when people wanted to run with a nickname rather than their given name.
• Not stating this requirement on the form is stupid and bad.
• This is compounded by the lack of a box for a former name, practically guaranteeing that this information is omitted.
• All of this is a problem that should be fixed. The Republic governor has acknowledged this, according to a quote from the article.

What isn't clear to me is that this is selectively enforced against trans people. We only know about the cases where it has happened to trans people because those are the cases that are being reported on. It is not surprising that a cis person encountering a bureaucratic annoyance because they put the name they go by rather than their birth name on the form was not considered newsworthy.

The vibe I get from this is that this is ragebait where the headline invites the reader to jump to conclusions while the contents of the article suggest that this is actually just a stupid case of the government being bad at making a form (something I have personally encountered a lot).

I'm totally fine with being proven wrong, it wouldn't be surprising in the slightest if there is malicious intent here. Is there evidence of selective enforcement here?

Would you make a divorced woman use her ex husband's last name when running for office? Same difference.

Hey, Ohio lawmakers: Get Fucked.

Dang whats in the water in Ohio? . . . Oh right vinyl chloride from freight train accidents.

Oh it’s the Ohio legislature I’m sure they’ll follow the law and the will of the people striving to create a fair democratic government. /s

Nah they’re going to tell her no, and possibly make the law stricter because we’re their present target since their attempt to ban abortion was stopped. Oh they may attempt to gerrymander harder too, but that might not be mathematically feasible