In a move that many hope will create a more equitable political landscape, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has officially revised the state’s declaration of candidacy forms, preventing a repeat of the controversy that led to one transgender woman’s disqualification from the ballot earlier this year. The updated forms, which now include clear instructions on listing any legal name changes from the past five years (except those resulting from marriage), appear poised to stop future injustices like the one experienced by Stark County’s would-be candidate, Vanessa Joy.
Joy’s story came to light in January, when she was disqualified from running as a Democrat in House District 50 for not including her previous name on her petition forms—commonly known in transgender communities as a “deadname.” The issue attracted national attention and brought to the forefront questions about whether the requirement was properly spelled out in the candidate paperwork. Critics pointed out that Ohio’s existing declaration of candidacy forms did not clearly mention the prior-name disclosure rule, nor did they provide sufficient space to list multiple names. Joy said she felt misled and unprepared, emphasizing that something so pivotal should have been much more explicit in the instructions.
A Frustrating Disqualification
For Joy, the disqualification wasn’t only about the forced outing of her former name—an experience that can be deeply hurtful and triggering for many transgender individuals. What frustrated her the most was how the rule was quietly omitted from forms and guidelines, leaving her without an opportunity to address the issue before it led to her disqualification. She expressed disappointment that such an impactful requirement was not clarified when she originally submitted her petitions.
“Something that is that important should have been on the instructions,” Joy remarked during an interview with the local ABC affiliate WEWS back in January. “It should have been on the petition.”
Though she believes transparency is crucial to fair elections, Joy resents the fact that it took her unfortunate experience for Ohio officials to consider updating the paperwork. “It’s always disheartening,” she has said, “to see basic fairness come only after someone has been burned by a rule they never even knew existed.”
The Revision: Clarity and Space
Responding to these concerns, LaRose’s office confirmed that they have enlarged the space where candidates are instructed to include all names they’ve used in the last five years—again, excluding name changes tied to marriage. Just as crucially, the new form explicitly states this requirement, making it much more difficult for anyone to unintentionally omit the information and find themselves disqualified.
“The new form does that, and it’s now available on our website for potential candidates to use if they decide to file a candidacy in 2025,” said Dan Lusheck, a spokesperson for LaRose. Advocates for transgender visibility and equality are relieved that this immediate action was taken, praising the update as a step toward ensuring that no future candidates—transgender or otherwise—will face a similar predicament.
Legislative Landscape
Interestingly, this paperwork update isn’t the only effort to address the prior-name requirement. Republican lawmakers in Ohio introduced legislation mandating that candidate declarations provide space and instructions on listing all names used within the last five years. Under the proposed bill, the requirement itself wouldn’t be abolished; rather, the amendment would ensure the necessity of having a designated line for disclosing other legal names.
The measure, Senate Bill 71, found support from members of both parties who pointed to Joy’s situation as emblematic of a larger problem: the risk that otherwise qualified candidates might be pushed out of the running on what many see as a technicality. Despite passing the House, the legislation ultimately stalled before the Senate could take it up in its final session of the year. As lawmakers went home for the holiday recess, it failed to be voted on and thus died for the time being.
The future of the bill remains uncertain; some suspect it will be resurrected in future sessions, especially given how many candidates’ qualifications have been challenged under the seldom-discussed requirement in recent months.
Widespread Impact
Although Joy’s story brought the issue to a head, she isn’t the only person affected by the prior-name disclosure rule. Two other transgender candidates in Western Ohio, Arienne Childrey and Bobbie Arnold, also did not include their previous names when filing for their state legislative bids. However, local elections officials opted to allow both women to remain on the ballot. Despite securing their places as candidates, both lost heavily to Republican incumbents in November’s elections.
In addition, Republican candidates have similarly encountered difficulties with the name change requirement. Caitlyn Weyer, for instance, stepped down from her position as law director for the city of Alliance—and withdrew her campaign for Stark County Common Pleas judge—because she had neglected to list a former surname. She was reappointed to her law director position shortly after. Meanwhile, Mahoning County Republican state Rep. Tex Fischer faced a challenge from local Democrats, although LaRose ultimately ruled in Fischer’s favor.
Mixed Reactions
Since the update was announced, there has been a range of responses from politicians and the public alike. On one hand, the change is being viewed as a win for transparency and fairness, given the previous forms provided little clarity on the rule. On the other hand, some critique the decision for not going far enough to protect the privacy of transgender candidates or anyone who might be uncomfortable sharing prior names—especially if they’re deeply personal or linked to traumatic experiences.
Childrey, one of the two Western Ohio transgender candidates, issued a statement praising LaRose for taking this step. She emphasized that the real issue was never about whether candidates were willing to follow the rules but rather that they needed to know the rules in the first place. “We would have complied if the provision had been communicated and the forms had provided the space to do so,” she said. “I’m glad this obstacle has been addressed, ensuring transgender candidates can now fully evaluate whether the cost of disclosing their deadname is worth pursuing public office.”
Joy’s Next Chapter
For her part, Joy has expressed a bittersweet sense of vindication. On the one hand, she appreciates that Ohio is taking steps to ensure future transgender candidates won’t end up in the same situation she did. On the other hand, she remains frustrated that it took a high-profile fiasco, along with national coverage and personal distress, to spur these modest yet vital changes.
Further, she admits that Ohio’s political environment has left her feeling disillusioned. Having already decided to move out of the state, Joy said she has little interest in making another run for office—at least, not in Ohio. “I’m not going to have to worry about it anymore,” she remarked with a note of finality.
Her story, however, continues to resonate with other transgender people across the country. Many see Joy’s ordeal as a stark reminder of how bureaucratic nuances can unintentionally (or intentionally) marginalize a vulnerable community. In some cases, these sorts of policies perpetuate systemic barriers that deter LGBTQ+ individuals from stepping forward to participate in public service.
Looking Ahead
While the updated forms are already available for anyone considering a 2025 candidacy, questions remain about whether additional legislation is needed to safeguard transgender candidates’ privacy. Some advocates argue that even though the new forms help ensure clarity, they do not address the inherent discomfort many transgender individuals feel about revealing their deadnames—a practice the broader community often views as invasive and disrespectful.
Still, even partial progress can be meaningful. Supporters of LaRose’s decision insist that by clarifying the rule, Ohio has made the electoral process a bit more transparent and predictable for everyone. For transgender candidates specifically, the update can at least help avoid nasty surprises, and allow them to decide in advance whether the disclosure is a price they’re prepared to pay in pursuit of public office.
Meanwhile, organizations that focus on transgender rights and political advocacy are continuing to monitor the situation, providing resources and guidance on how best to handle deadnaming requirements in future elections. Many hope that clarity and consistency in the forms will reduce confusion and anxiety, giving transgender individuals a fair shot at representing their communities without worrying about being blindsided by archaic or poorly communicated rules.
The Bottom Line
Ohio’s newly revised candidate declaration forms mark a notable turning point in the ongoing discussions around name changes, privacy, and electoral fairness. While the prior-name rule has not been abolished, the changes that LaRose enacted should bring a measure of transparency and consistency that will hopefully spare future candidates from the experiences that ended Joy’s campaign before it truly began.
For transgender individuals, their families, and allies, this episode underscores how intricately bureaucratic procedures can affect real lives. Whether it’s navigating voter registration, running for office, or simply existing in a world where identity often becomes politicized, attention to detail—and empathy—remain essential. Joy’s journey may have led her away from Ohio, but her case has prompted an important conversation about visibility, respect, and equality, all of which are indispensable for a democracy that truly includes everyone.
