Two candidates will appear on Ohioans’ ballots in November under names they exploit every day but weren’t born with. Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, both transgender women, have gone through the process of legally changing their names, but an hidden provision of Ohio law requires them to provide all of their previous names on their candidate petitions.
Although both candidates are Democrats running in unthreatening Republican districts, their histories highlight a weakness in state law. There is no mention of this requirement in the candidate declaration form. It also leaves no room for previous names. Meanwhile, for many people who make a change, shedding their so-called “dead name” is both an affirmation of who they have become and a way to protect their mental and physical health.
The incident prompted competing legislative amendments. One measure, sponsored in November by Republican opponents Childrey and Arnold, would make protests easier by allowing voters of either party to challenge a person’s candidacy. Another, backed by Democrats, would create an exemption for candidates who change their name in an Ohio court.
Testimony of supporters
At a hearing last week, two county election officials spoke in favor of a measure that would expand candidate protests. Robert Wood of the Preble County Board of Elections defended the prior name requirement as just another in a long line of standards intended to protect the public. Wood argued that minimum and maximum ages and prohibitions on felons holding office are perfectly reasonable.
“It is clear that individuals with a history of criminal conduct should be barred from holding elected office that makes or upholds laws,” Wood said. “I would not choose to hire an accountant convicted of embezzlement, a financial advisor convicted of securities fraud, or a doctor accused of malpractice.”
In that vein, he argued that a recent name is not a recent person and “if there are prior issues with the candidate, the public should know about it.”
The comeback bid has begun: Ohio Supreme Court allows former lawmaker to appear on the ballot
Ironically, during this year’s primary election, the state’s highest court allowed a candidate with a prior felony record to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. Former Republican Rep. Steven Kraus argued that the conviction was “vacated” even though it was merely sealed. Kraus lost the election to incumbent Rep. DJ Swearingen, R-Huron.
Putnam County Board of Elections member Tony Schroeder argued that “trust is earned through transparency” and that “more information, not less, builds trust.” Schroeder insisted that the requirement for prior names 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, local board officials, nor longtime campaign lawyers had ever heard of the requirement.
“No one really knows about it,” Grim said. “It’s not in the candidate handbook. It’s not said anywhere, and you’re talking about transparency. I would argue that not having that information in the candidate handbook or whatever is not very transparent.”
Schroeder acknowledged that it is “entirely possible” that some boards are unaware of this requirement, and argued that more explicit disclosure of the requirement provided a “simple technical solution” that the Secretary of State could address.
Rep. Bill Seitz, D-Cincinnati, expressed support for disclosing prior names but questioned the existing exception for people whose name changes through marriage.
“I really don’t understand why we have this exception,” he said. “Because if Mary Smith had a long criminal record under the name Mary Smith and is now married to Tony Jones, why wouldn’t voters want to know about it?”
It’s worth noting that while Schroeder and Wood sought to confirm the existing requirement to disclose prior names, they didn’t say much about what the bill would actually mean — it would allow people from either party to challenge a person’s candidacy.
Referring to an even split in the county board, Schroeder suggested that it would “extend limited checks and balances to the ballot access process, eliminating partisan advantages.” Rep. Richard Brown, D-Canal Winchester, argued that would likely do the opposite and open the door to baseless candidate protests.
Brown asked whether Schroeder would support an amendment “that would impose a civil or possibly criminal penalty on someone for filing a protest that involves reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of something for the purpose of harassing someone.”
“I obey the law,” Schroeder replied. “I can’t cope.”
Opponent’s testimony
Schroeder was the only person to oppose a competing bill that would have carved out an exception for candidates who legally changed their name in Ohio. He noted that in many elections, insufficient votes – ballots in which voters do not choose an office or issue – outnumber any candidate or option.
“Voters should be able to fully check the candidate who is asking for their vote,” he argued. “The more voters know about a candidate, the more likely they are to vote for that candidate or choose another candidate. I am asking you to remember this hidden participant, the under-represented voice, and vote for more, not less, information for the electorate.”
Schroeder argued that the two most significant sources of candidate information available to voters are the ballot and the candidate’s petition. While the Putnam County Board of Elections website allows voters to view their ballot, it does not publish candidate petitions.
Grim pressed Schroeder, describing his tough process for people who legally change their name. Schroeder said he worries about people who recently moved to Ohio and changed their name elsewhere.
“This bill only allows people who have legally changed their name in the state of Ohio (to get an exception),” Grim explained. “So if someone moved from Indiana, Michigan or Kentucky, they would still have to disclose it.”
She argued that the court process is more complicated than getting married, and then noted that Ohio allows candidates to exploit a pseudonym on the ballot.
“What’s the difference between putting a nickname on the ballot that isn’t my real name?” she asked: “Because they will be examining the candidacy there, not declaring the candidacy.”
Schroeder thought this was a fair point and conceded that “to the extent (Grim’s bill) doesn’t limit the information available to potential voters, as you described, I think that would be absolutely fine.”
Follow the OCJ reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
