In a rare legislative confluence, a hearing before the House Government Oversight Committee Tuesday morning featured dueling bills regarding candidacy laws for transgender Ohioans seeking public office:
HB 467, which would grant an exemption to an obscure Ohio law requiring candidates to formally disclose any changes of name in the past five years, and HB 471, which would give voters registered under any political party legal footing to challenge the legitimacy of transgender candidates should they fail to publicly list their former legal names.
Republican lawmakers introduced HB 471 just weeks after Reps. Michelle Grim (D-Toledo) and Beryl Brown Piccolantonio (D) introduced HB 467 – seemingly in direct response to the Democratic legislation designed to protect transgender candidates from discrimination in the election process.
During Tuesday’s hearing, committee members heard opponent testimony on HB 467 and proponent testimony for HB 471.
Witnesses argued that transgender candidates should be required to list any former legal names in order to petition for candidacy – despite a massive loophole allowing married women to omit their maiden names via the same candidacy petition.
Robert Wood, current member of the Preble County Board of Elections and former Chairman of the Greene County Board of Elections and Executive Chairman of the Greene County Republican Party, testified in favor of HB 471.
Via his personal social media accounts, Wood has self-identified as Christian and “conservative.” In 2020, he campaigned heavily for HB 471 co-sponsor Rep. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria).
Tony Schroeder, a member of the Putnam County Board of Elections since 2016, 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 obscurity of the law, which Schroeder said he believes dates back to roughly 1939 or 1940.
Discussing the marriage loophole, witnesses appeared to concede the core arguments being put forth by Democrats around making exceptions for trans candidates.
“I support the current law,” said Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati). “It’s been on the books a long time, as you pointed out. But it does contain an anomaly, and I don’t know if anybody knows why this is: and that is that the requirement to disclose former names within five years does not apply to someone who has gotten married in that period of time.”
“I don’t really understand why we have that exception,” Seitz added.
“I can’t figure that one out either,” Schroeder said. “It is certainly an anomaly.”
Schroeder also said creating an exception to name-change statute would allow candidates to move to Ohio from another state, limiting voters’ access to information about them.
Immediately, Grim clarified that HB 467 would only apply to individuals who have legally changed their name in Ohio.
“Oh,” Schroder said. “I think that would be fine.”
Later, Grim highlighted Ohio’s already rigorous name change process.
“Someone who has legally changed their name goes through a much more rigorous process than someone who gets married,” she said.
In submitted written testimony, Matthew Gilmore, a Mercer County Juvenile Court judge, wrote that Ohio’s name change process “is actually quite simple.” He then outlined – ostensibly without irony – the extensive procedural description that includes:
- Publishing public notice of the applicant’s impending name-change at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing
- Paying publication fees and collecting proof of notice
- Providing the court proof of public notice, an initial application, certified copies of the applicant’s birth certificate and an affidavit in support of the name change
- Paying court initial application fees, typically around $100
- Attending a probate court hearing in-person before a judge
- Confirming personal information from the affidavit under oath, including information about creditors or pending bankruptcy proceedings (which may disqualify an applicant entirely)
- Confirming there is no record the applicant has ever “pled guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for having committed a sexually oriented offense or a child victim offense.”
- Providing the court proof the applicant has been a resident of the county for at least 60 days via certified billing documents etc.
In Ohio, three transgender candidates have already been challenged directly regarding their former legal names.
While Ohio House candidates Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Brooke Arnold are set to appear on the ballot, they could be forced to vacate their seats in the event that they win in violation of state election statutes.
The state’s third transgender candidate, Vanessa Joy, was disqualified from appearing on the ballot entirely after failing to list her former legal name on her initial application for candidacy. 🔥
Ignite Action
- To see a full list of Ohio’s LGBTQ+-related bills, click here.
- To register to vote or to check your voter eligibility status in the state of Ohio, click here.
- To find contact information for your Ohio state representative, click here.
- To find contact information for your Ohio senator, click here.
- If you are a young LGBTQ+ person in crisis, please contact the Trevor Project: 866-4-U-Trevor.
- If you are an transgender adult in need of immediate help, contact the National Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
Know an LGBTQ+ Ohio story we should cover? TELL US!
Submit a story!
