In a uncommon legislative convergence, a hearing Before House of Representatives Government Oversight Committee Dueling bills were introduced Tuesday morning regarding the candidacy of transgender Ohioans seeking public office:
HB 467which would provide an exception to a little-known Ohio law requiring applicants to formally disclose any name changes in the past five years, and HB 471which would give registered voters of any political party a legal basis to challenge the legality of transgender candidates if they do not publicly disclose their previous legal name.
Republican lawmakers introduced HB 471 just weeks after Reps. Michelle Grim (D-Toledo) and Beryl Brown Piccolantonio (D) introduced HB 467 — apparently in direct response to Democratic legislation aimed at protecting transgender candidates from discrimination in the electoral process.
During Tuesday’s hearing, committee members heard testimony from opponents on HB 467 and testimony from supporters on HB 471.
Witnesses argued that transgender candidates should be required to provide any previous legal name in order to petition to run for office – despite a huge legal loophole that allows married women to omit their maiden name from the same candidacy petition.
Robert Wood, current member Preble County Board of Elections and former president Greene County Board of Elections and Executive Chairman Greene County Republican Partytestified in favor of HB 471.
On his personal social media accounts, Wood has described himself as a Christian and a “conservative.” In 2020, he campaigned heavily for HB 471 co-sponsor Rep. Rodney Creech (West Alexandria).
Tony Schroeder, member Putnam County Board of Elections since 2016, he has testified against HB 467 and in favor of HB 471.
Both Rep. Grim and Rep. Richard Brown (D-Canal Winchester) questioned Schroeder directly, discussing the functional ambiguity of the law, which Schroeder said dates back to roughly 1939 or 1940.
In discussing the marriage law loophole, witnesses seemed to acknowledge Democrats’ core arguments about making exceptions for transgender candidates.
“I support the current law,” said Rep. Bill Seitz (Cincinnati). “As you noticed, this thing has been planned for a long time. But it contains an anomaly, and I don’t know if anyone knows why it is so: namely, that the requirement to disclose previous surnames within five years does not apply to people who got married within that period.”
“I really don’t understand why we have this exception,” Seitz added.
“I can’t figure this one out either,” Schroeder said. “It’s definitely an anomaly.”
Schroeder also said that creating an exception to the name change law would allow candidates to move to Ohio from another state, limiting voters’ access to information about them.
Grim immediately clarified that HB 467 would only apply to people who legally changed their name in Ohio.
“Oh,” Schroder said. “I think that would be okay.”
Later, Grim highlighted Ohio’s already stringent renaming process.
“A person who legally changes their name goes through a much more rigorous process than someone who gets married,” she said.
In written testimony, Matthew Gilmore, a Mercer County Juvenile Court judge, wrote that the name change process in Ohio “is actually quite simple.” He then outlined – seemingly without irony – a lengthy procedural description that included:
- Publishing a public notice of the impending change of the applicant’s name at least 30 days before the hearing date
- Paying fees for publication and collecting evidence of notice
- Providing judicial proof of public notice, preliminary application, certified copies of the applicant’s birth certificate, and an affidavit supporting the name change
- Paying court fees for the initial filing fee, usually around $100
- Attending a probate court hearing in person before a judge
- Confirmation of personal information from the affidavit, including information about creditors or pending bankruptcy proceedings (which may completely disqualify the applicant)
- Confirming that there is no record of the applicant having ever “pleaded guilty or entered an adjudication against a delinquent child for committing a sexual offense or an offense involving a child victim.”
- Submission of judicial proof that the applicant has resided in the county for at least 60 days, based on certified settlement documents, etc.
In Ohio, three transgender candidates have already faced direct charges regarding their previous legal names.
Although Ohio House candidates Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Brooke Arnold are scheduled to appear on the ballot, they could be forced from their seats if they win in violation of state election statutes.
The state’s third transgender candidate, Vanessa Joy, was completely disqualified from the ballot after failing to provide her previous legal name in her initial candidacy application. 🔥
Ignite the action
- To see Ohio’s full list of LGBTQ+-related bills, click here.
- To register to vote or check your eligibility to vote in Ohio, click here.
- To find the contact information for your Ohio State Representative, click here.
- To find the contact information for an Ohio senator, click here.
- If you are a juvenile LGBTQ+ person in crisis, please contact Trevor’s project: 866-4-U-Trevor.
- If you are a transgender adult in need of immediate support, please contact National Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
