Even if this law is otherwise constitutionally sound, this application should be sex discrimination per Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. #lgbtq
@JoshuaHolland @paul Agreed. The law seems totally reasonable on its face...
But when none of the forms have a slot for this "required" information and none of the guides for submitting petitions mention it, and it's only enforced against one transgender person... Yeah, that's a fucking problem.
@LouisIngenthron @JoshuaHolland
I think the law should be thrown out because it gives preferential treatment to married candidates with name changes versus unmarried candidates with name changes. That don't set right with me. If the purpose of the law is to let voters know a candidates previous identity, why are married people given different class status? Does the state see married people as more publicly trustworthy?
@paul @JoshuaHolland I actually like the core idea of the law, but I agree: there should not be an exception for marriage either.
