This year, a handful of transgender candidates filed to run for state office in Ohio, but their candidacies were rejected because of the names they used on their documents. Under Ohio law, applicants must include in their petitions any prior names they have used within the past five years.
It is worth noting that the form itself makes no mention of this requirement. Instead, it presents a paragraph like “I, the undersigned…” with a single blank space for the candidate’s name. Several sections from Chapter 3513 of the Ohio Revised Code are listed in italics at the top of the form, including each section from 3513.05 through 3513.10, except 3513.06.
The earlier name appears in 3513.06.
State law has an exception for marriage, and Reps. Michele Grim, D-Toledo, and Beryl Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, want to add any other name changes. As part of the transition, many people in the trans community shed their “dead name” the moment they turn the page on their previous gender identity.
“If candidates have made efforts to legally change their name in a court in our state,” Grim asked in her written testimony, “why must we deny them the ability to run for office under the same name?”
Ohio’s transgender candidates are encouraging Democrats on the Transgender Protection Act and a GOP bill they say unfairly targets them
Some, but not all, transgender candidates who faced protests this year were allowed to appear on the ballot. Two of them, Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, are currently speaking out against Republican Party officials who are advancing a bill that would make it easier to exclude candidates from the ballot in the future.
Reps. Angie King, R-Celina, and Rodney Creech, R-West Alexandria, want voters in either party to be able to challenge primary candidates. Under applicable law, only voters from a given candidate’s party can submit a protest. In written testimony, King defended the previous name requirement.
“The prior name requirement prioritizes transparency,” she insisted. “Allowing voters to perform background checks for liens, judgments, bankruptcies, voting history, criminal history, etc., allowing voters to make informed decisions.”
She also insisted that if her opponent defeated her in November, the courts would throw out the election due to the lack of previous names in her declaration. Allowing this candidate to run is “disingenuous,” King said. She believes that allowing voters of either party to object will prevent such a situation.
“Everything But the Secret”
King’s opponent in November will be Arienne Childrey. She explained to the committee Tuesday that she received a court order changing her name in July 2020, but had been using that name in public since 2017. As Childrey described it, she worked as a manager at a huge retail store, supervising more than 200 employees.
“I’m sure many of you know the dynamics and small towns of Ohio,” she said. “And regardless of what you think about it, I think you can all understand that this transition, this earlier name change and transitions were not a secret in this community.”
Childrey explained that she joined the legal process for practical reasons – to avoid confusion over work schedules that included her dead name. Neither court documents nor public notices regarding the case are sealed.
While she expressed some sympathy for the intention to stop individuals from hiding their past, she argued that the bill did not actually spell out how it could ensure compliance.
“Now my married name would be exempt from this provision; my dead name is not,” she said. “So I don’t even know if I should add my deceased name to my maiden name since I was using it at the time? Or, since my married name doesn’t count, do I include it in this na… it gets very confusing.”
He explains that previous court cases aren’t very helpful either. The 1950 case that Mrs. King cites in maintaining that her opponent will be barred from holding office also holds that individuals can change their name without going to court, as long as the change is not for “fraudulent purposes.” goals.”
“If we look at the date I started using my current name, I agree,” Childrey explained. “If we look at the date when I initiated legal proceedings, no.”
Vanessa Joy told the committee: “I’m probably the reason we’re here today.” Unlike Childrey and Arnold, her candidacy in Stark County was disqualified by the board of elections. She described being devastated when the board called and informed her that she had collected the required signatures but would not be considered for the vote anyway.
“Two other statewide candidates also submitted their petitions without knowing about this law,” she explained. “Stark County disqualified me, but their counties allowed them to keep running. This means that the law is not evenly enforced.”
Bobbie Arnold described how convoluted the name change process is in Ohio courts – proving residency, good cause, disclosing financial and criminal history, and then publishing a notice in the local newspaper for 30 days. Rep. Richard Brown, D-Canal Winchester, asked if he knew if recently married applicants were required to disclose their maiden name, to which Arnold reiterated that it wasn’t necessary because of the marriage exception.
“Well, if a married woman isn’t required to give her maiden name,” he asked rhetorically, “how the hell can we find out about her past?”
Candidate for judge
While transgender candidates were the cause of the dueling bills, their effects go beyond them. Alliance Chief Legal Officer Caitlyn Weyer has been with her partner for 14 years. Although she considers him her husband, they are not married and have no intention of doing so. But in 2020, she changed her name to Weyer to match his last name.
About a year later, she was appointed as the city’s legal director and subsequently won election to the remaining term. She was re-elected in 2023 and even filed to run for Stark County judge this year before anyone mentioned her former name as a potential problem. It was an anonymous tip to the newspaper. Weyer described asking several local judges and a Franklin County attorney with years of experience, but no one had ever heard of such a requirement.
“I would have happily agreed if I had known,” she said, “but again, it’s not in the guide. This isn’t even the place for a petition.”
Weyer explained that the second half of the former name statute left her with a “very important decision.” The law requires that a person selected without providing his or her name be suspended and held liable for any wages collected.
So she resigned from her position and ended her candidacy. The mayor quickly reappointed her as law director, and the local Republican Party voted to allow her to finish her term.
Weyer, however, argued that this provision still made no sense. For example, although it contains an exception for marriage, it says nothing about divorce. She also played out a “what if” scenario in which a judge suited her situation was selected, an issue that came up five and a half years into their term. They could have been removed from the squad and ordered to pay back their full salary, even though five years have passed since their previous names.
“The purpose of this law is to make sure voters know who you are and what your background is, but I really don’t understand it,” Weyer explained. “It only works based on your petition. This does not apply to the vote itself. I understand that your petition is a public record, but changing my name also applies to this case, it doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.”
Follow the OCJ reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
