Election officials weigh in on candidate deadnaming bills prompted by transgender candidates

Getty Images.

Two candidates will appear on Ohioans’ ballots this November under the names they use in daily life but weren’t born with. Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, both trans women, went through the process to legally change their name, but an obscure provision in Ohio law requires them to list any prior names on their candidate petitions.

Although both candidates are Democrats running in safe Republican districts, their story highlights a blindspot in state law. The candidate declaration form makes no mention of the requirement. It leaves no space for previous names either. Meanwhile, for many people who transition, shedding their so-called “deadname” is both an affirmation of who they have become, and a way to protect their mental and physical health.

The incident has prompted competing legislative fixes . One measure, sponsored by Childrey and Arnold’s Republican opponents this November, would make protests easier by allowing voters of any party to challenge a person’s candidacy. Another, backed by Democrats, would create an exemption for candidates who changed their legal name through an Ohio court.

Proponents’ testimony

At a hearing last week, a pair of county elections officials spoke in favor of the measure expanding candidate protests. Robert Wood, from the Preble County board of elections, defended the prior names requirement as another in a long line of standards meant to protect the public. Minimum ages, maximum ages and prohibitions for felons holding office are perfectly reasonable, Wood argued.

“It is self-evident that those committing felonious acts in the past should be barred from holding an elected office creating and or upholding law,” Wood said. “I wouldn’t have I wouldn’t hire an accountant with an embezzlement conviction, a financial advisor with a securities fraud conviction or a doctor with malpractice charges.”

In that vein, he argued a new name is not a new person, and “if there are prior issues with a candidate, the public should know.”

The comeback bid is on: Ohio Supreme Court allows former lawmaker to appear on ballot

Ironically, during this year’s primaries, the state supreme court allowed a candidate who previously committed a felony to run for a state House seat. The former Republican lawmaker, Steven Kraus, argued that conviction was “expunged,” although it had only been sealed. Kraus lost the election to incumbent, Rep. D.J. Swearingen, R-Huron.

Putnam County board of elections member Tony Schroeder argued “trust is earned through transparency,” and that “more information, not less, builds trust.” Schroeder insisted the prior names requirement is well known and well understood.

However, Rep. Michele Grim, D-Toledo, pushed back. She pressed Schroeder on testimony from several candidates that neither they, officials at their local board or long-serving campaign attorneys had ever heard about the requirement.

“Nobody really knows about it,” Grim said. “It’s not in the candidate handbook. It’s not stated anywhere, and you are talking about transparency. I would argue that that that not being in the candidate handbook or anything is not very transparent.”

Schroeder acknowledged it’s “entirely possible” some boards don’t know about the requirement, and argued more explicit disclosure of it is a “simple, technical fix” the Secretary of State could handle.

Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, voiced support for disclosing prior names but questioned the existing exception for people whose name changed through marriage.

“I don’t really understand why we have that exception,” he said. “Because if Mary Smith had accumulated a long criminal record under the name Mary Smith, and now she’s married to Tony Jones, why wouldn’t the voting public want to know that?”

Notably, while Schroeder and Wood sought to vindicate the existing requirement to disclose prior names, they didn’t say much about what the bill would actually do — allow people from either party to challenge a person’s candidacy.

In an allusion to a county board’s even partisan split, Schroeder suggested it would “extend limited means of check and balance to the ballot access process, eliminating partisan advantage.” Rep. Richard Brown, D-Canal Winchester argued it would likely do the opposite and open the door to baseless candidate protests.

Brown asked if Schroeder would support an amendment “that would penalize someone either civilly and or perhaps criminally, for filing a protest with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of something, for the for the purpose of harassing somebody.”

“I follow the law,” Schroeder replied, “I don’t make it.”

Opponent testimony

Schroeder was the only individual to speak in opposition to the competing bill which would provide and exception for candidates who changed their name legally in Ohio. He noted in many elections undervotes — ballots where voters make no selection for an office or question — outnumber any of the candidates or options.

“Voters should have the opportunity to fully vet a candidate who is asking for their vote,” he argued. “The more voters know about a candidate, the more likely they are to vote for the candidate or to choose another candidate. I would ask you to remember that hidden participant, the under vote, and to vote in favor of more, not less information for the electorate.”

Schroeder argued two of the most important sources of information about candidates available to voters are the ballot and the candidate’s petition. Although the Putnam County board of elections website allows voters to preview their ballot, they do not post candidates’ petitions.

Grim pressed Schroeder on his opposition, describing how rigorous the process is for people who legally change their names. Schroeder said he was worried about people who recently moved to Ohio and changed their name elsewhere.

“This bill only lets people who have legally changed their name in the state of Ohio (get an exception),” Grim explained. “So, if someone moved from Indiana, or Michigan or Kentucky, they would still have to disclose.”

She argued that court process is more complicated than getting married, and went on to note that Ohio allows candidates to use a nickname on the ballot.

“What’s the difference between putting a nickname that’s not my real name on the ballot?” she asked, “Because that’s where they would be researching this candidate as opposed to the declaration of candidacy.”

Schroeder acknowledged it as a good point, and allowed that “to the extent that (Grim’s bill) does not limit the information available to potential voters, as you’ve described, I think that would be absolutely fine.”

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

The post Election officials weigh in on candidate deadnaming bills prompted by transgender candidates appeared first on Ohio Capital Journal .