Revived Ohio bill amplifies rule that targeted trans Statehouse candidates
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Ohio lawmakers are reviving a bill doubling down on a rule that nearly disqualified their transgender opponents from the ballot in last November's election.
House Bill 196 would allow any voter, regardless of party affiliation, to formally protest a political party's candidate, while current law only allows an individual to challenge a candidate who is of the same party. The legislation also reiterates existing Ohio law requiring candidates who changed their name to complete forms with their current and former names.
'The catalyst for this bill started in my district, there was a candidate that did not disclose their former name,' said Rep. Angie King (R-Celina), H.B. 196's primary sponsor, during the bill's first hearing on April 29. 'The intent is for transparency and ensure that voters have a meaningful choice of candidates.'
Ohio attorney general appeals ruling that struck down social media age verification law
King proposed a nearly identical bill in 2024, when her opponent in November's election, a trans candidate named Arienne Childrey, was nearly disqualified from running for not including her deadname — the name a trans person was assigned at birth but that does not align with their gender identity — on petition paperwork.
While the Mercer County Board of Elections received a protest to Childrey's certification from the county's Republican Party Chairman Robert Hibner, the board said Hibner's protest was invalid because he is from the opposing political party. Childrey lost to King but was appointed in January to serve as Ohio's first openly trans city council member.
H.B. 196 would also require future petition paperwork to include a line for listing previous names. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose already made a similar change in December, updating such paperwork to include a larger space for the candidate's name and instructing candidates to 'include all prior names used in the past 5 years, excluding marriage name changes.'
Along with failing to provide their former name, King's legislation recodifies the following reasons under which any eligible voter may protest a candidacy:
Person is not a U.S. citizen;
Person isn't the minimum age to hold office;
Person would exceed an applicable term or age limit; or
Person has a criminal conviction.
Report: Tressel weighs run at governor's office
Rep. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria), H.B. 196's other primary sponsor, noted during the April hearing that the legislation features a provision that, if a candidate is elected after the violation of one of the five reasons outlined under this bill, the individual would be required to vacate their seat and pay back any funds received in the form of a salary that is 'untransparent' to voters.
Creech also ran in November's election against a trans candidate named Bobbie Arnold. Like Childrey, Arnold did not include her former name on petition paperwork and had her possible disqualification dismissed by the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
'I am committed to ensuring Ohio elections are the most secure, fair, transparent, and accuratein the nation,' Creech said during the hearing. 'This legislation will help voters make more informed decisions at the polls and hold candidates accountable.'
Childrey and Arnold are two of several trans candidates who unsuccessfully ran for the Statehouse last year, including Vanessa Joy, who was disqualified from running for failing to provide her deadname on paperwork. While Joy appealed her disqualification, the board of elections voted to keep her off the ballot.
Rep. Tex Fischer (R-Boardman) was also questioned after the Mahoning County Democratic Party argued he should be removed for failing to include his former name, Austin James Fischer, on filing paperwork. The representative changed his legal name in 2020 to Austin James Texford Fischer when he began going by 'Tex.' LaRose ruled in September that Fischer could appear on the ballot.
The Spectrum: School issues fail; changes in state parties
Rep. Juanita Brent (D-Cleveland) cited Joy, Childrey and Arnold during the April hearing and questioned whether the bill was created simply because these candidates were trans. King reiterated that H.B. 196's intent is transparency, and argued it would allow voters to check candidates' backgrounds, like voting and criminal records.
Rep. Marilyn John (R-Richland County) gave an example from her district, when a candidate running for office changed their name several times for fabricated reasons. John, who did not name the candidate, claimed that person was trying to hide their legal issues, including failing to pay taxes and breaking several laws. John said a protest couldn't be filed against that candidate given they were part of a different political party.
H.B. 196 will receive additional hearings in the House General Government Committee, open for public testimony.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Webb: 'Give me a chance'
GRAYSON Sen. Robin Webb, who just last week was the lone Democrat representing rural Kentuckians, said she never expected her party switch to garner so much attention. Webb, who has represented back-country counties in Frankfort since the 1990s, has been the center of both praise and contempt after announcing she would be joining the Republican Party last week. Often voting in line with Republican legislature and sponsoring bills with bi-partisan support throughout her decades in the General Assembly, Webb said she didn't anticipate her announcement to be a surprise, or that it was worthy of reaching the national stage. 'Oh heck no. I'm not that important,' Webb said when asked if she expected to appear in national and international headlines, including multiple talking segments on Fox News since the announcement. That attention has brought Webb an array of reactions, a mixed bag of 'disappointment and meanness expressed — but it's overall been positive,' she said. After decades in the legislature and at the near halfway point of her Senate term, Webb said she chose to join the Republican party to 'get it out of the way,' ahead of the General Assembly's interim budget session. 'I wanted to be starting legislative work in earnest and get it out of the way so it wouldn't be a distraction,' Webb said. 'I felt like it was the transparent and ethical thing to do, to not do it at the last minute.' As mentioned, Webb's legislative history has often leaned conservative on issues related to gun, conservation and agricultural issues, which she said compounded onto a 'disconnect and rural divide' within Kentucky's Democratic Party. 'Of course there are a few issues we separate on,' Webb said of her former party. 'They just have a different demographic and I felt like we weren't being acknowledged.' That division, Webb said, became more clear to her on energy, agricultural and social policies, although she said she still strived to remain 'party-blind when it comes to work.' 'Like I said, my votes are pretty consistent the past 25 years. Nothing much has really changed about me,' Webb reasoned. 'I landed where my votes and things have taken me.' The Senator's district — Boyd, Carter, Greenup and Lewis County — has continued to trend from historically Democrat to Republican in local and national races, but Webb told The Daily Independent her decision to change parties was not swayed by future political races or aspirations. 'I felt like if my voting record was that far off, I would've probably had opposition,' Webb said, adding running as a Democrat candidate has never lessened her popularity in her district. 'I represent a Republican district and I won one of the most Republican counties in the state,' Webb said. 'To nip that myth, I do not have my eye on any other office. I like where I am and will run for state senate again.' In response to statements of betrayal possibly felt by rural Democrats who officially have no representation in Frankfort, Webb said that shouldn't be the case as she will continue to legislate as she always has. 'They should feel like I'm being transparent and honest,' Webb said. 'I'm being true to myself and trying to be true to my people. 'I thank everybody who has put me where I am and all the party support I've received from both sides,' Webb said. According to Webb, her party affiliation was not swayed by national politics, either, as she said 'nationally, I don't agree with anybody completely,' as her national focus has been preserving Second Amendment rights and preserving 'the Constitution as a whole.' Webb's primary focus in the Senate, however, will continue to be on 'rural issues and voters.' 'I will continue to look at how to help my people and continue to look at their issues,' Webb said, '(and) try to bring our share of tax dollars and try to grow our economy. 'I'm still who I am and I hope that they give me a chance to do it,' Webb said to her voters — no matter their registration. 'My people mean more to me than anything and that's not going to change.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Democrats Can Stop Alienating Young Men: Some Unsolicited Advice
Last November, Donald Trump soundly defeated Kamala Harris among young men 18 to 29 years old, racking up about 56% of their votes according to the Associated Press. That represents a huge decline from 2008, the climax of the Barack Obama coalition, when the Democratic candidate won 62% of the young male vote against GOP challenger John McCain. Clearly, Democrats have a young man problem—and they've vowed to do something about it. Accordingly, the party is spending $20 million on a special multiyear effort called "Speaking With American Men: A Strategic Plan." The project, The New York Times recently reported, will "study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces." Yes, really. Hold your laughter. It's true that leading Democratic figures could use some help on the "syntax" and "language" fronts. They might begin to right the ship, on that score, by ditching the infamous gobbledygook "gaffes" of Joe Biden and the "unburdened by what has been" word salads of Harris. But the rubber will meet the road for Democrats when it comes to the critical, elusive third category of concern for their new young male outreach effort: content. To paraphrase a venerable saying, one can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig, at the end of the day, is still a pig. And something big has to change for the Democrats. Nor is their problem limited to young men; the party's overall favorability ratings, in recent months, have hit record lows in public polling. Here, Democrats, is some (entirely) unsolicited advice on steps you might consider taking to become less catastrophically unpopular with young men—and many other Americans too. On the issue of sexuality and the human person, you might consider beginning your vaunted young male outreach efforts by deigning to properly define what exactly a "man" is—and, by extension, what a "woman" is as well. Indeed, your party's most recent Supreme Court nominee publicly struggled to crack this case. It is probably best, before attempting to devise pro-young-man public policy ideas, to familiarize yourselves with your target audience. The definition of "man" as it has existed since the Garden of Eden is a pretty good place to start. A 2021 Marist poll has found that more Americans find the Democratic Party to be a bigger threat to democracy than the Republican Party. Here, a donkey, the animal mascot of the Democratic Party, can... A 2021 Marist poll has found that more Americans find the Democratic Party to be a bigger threat to democracy than the Republican Party. Here, a donkey, the animal mascot of the Democratic Party, can be seen. More Leigh Vogel/Getty After successfully defining "man" and "woman," you might consider not indulging recurring grievances levied against so-called toxic masculinity. It is generally a good idea, in political outreach, to not hold in dripping disdain the demographic group you are trying to reach. Sure, men have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel, but many of them have also been doing some pretty good things for humanity since around that same time period. One key to publicly rejecting misandry will be ditching support for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" initiatives, which, along with also now being illegal, invariably take a pretty dim view of the heterogametic sex. On the issue of immigration, you might consider not opening up America's borders to, well, pretty much the whole world—but especially young males in search of economic opportunity in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Democrats might not have gotten this impression from the Harvard faculty lounge, but over half of Americans these days live paycheck to paycheck. Far too many young men struggle to provide for their families; indeed, many delay marriage in the first place because of finances. Flooding the zone with more wage competition may please the wokerati, but it won't help you regain credibility with American breadwinners. On the issue of environmentalism, you might consider not so conspicuously sacrificing American energy on the altar of climate alarmism. The young male voter simply wants a fair shot to make a decent living and provide safety and security for his family. The ham-handed restriction of hydrocarbon extraction does more than anything else to spike the price of every good or service. You might think that Trump's tariffs are a threat to price stability, but you'd be wrong—at least so far. The real threat to the fiscal well-being of the median American comes from the price of energy, from which all other prices flow. Maybe, just maybe, don't sacrifice all that on the altar of "Mother Earth"? The good news for Democrats is that there is a lot of potential upside from their efforts to reach young men. The bad news for Democrats is the same: There's so much to gain precisely because of how unpopular they currently are with that cohort. Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," senior counsel for the Article III Project, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, and author of the new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West (Radius Book Group). Subscribe to "The Josh Hammer Report," a Newsweek newsletter. X: @josh_hammer. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
